Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

Seth Brundle

Jawgap wrote: »

SF killed Donaldson?

I thought SF were a political party?

That's the pretence!

Phoebas

...And Justice wrote: »

Seriously? If I was part of an organisation for over 40 years and knew if I opened my gob, I'd be killed, yeah I'd say nothing. Dennis Donaldson was a senior figure in SF in the north, he was martin Mcguinness right hand man, (generally accepted as leader of the IRA army council)and look what happened him. There was no investigation, it was just accepted that you double crossed the IRA and were killed for it. Seriously look at the documentary about it on you tube, it goes to show how secretive these guys are. I can't take you seriously when you think nothing would happen if people opened their gobs.

You need to try responding to what I actually post, not your own imagining of it.
I didn't say that nothing would happen to Gerry Adams if he opened his gob. I said that this wasn't his motivation for keeping his gob shut.
His motivation for keeping his gob shut is because Gerry Adams wants to protect Brian Stack's murderer.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I notice Richard didn't want the discussion about what a journalist would do if faced with the same quandry on revealing a source. Journalists will go to jail rather than do it.
A 'state' will keep secrets because they are dangerous to the security of that state.
But when somebody from SF does the exact same thing as both above, to keep a peace process from completely and catastrophically collapsing he is a despot and a liar and a danger to the state.
Rank and dangerous hypocrisy.

Adams is not a journalist, SF is not a state - it's a false equivocation to suggest otherwise.

You might as well as argue that if Adams was a priest sure wouldn't he be bound by the seal of the confessional.

...And Justice

Jawgap wrote: »

SF killed Donaldson?

I thought SF were a political party?

I didn't say that and you know that. The IRA is suspected of doing it.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

I was asked for an example of SF victim blaming, I provided it, now I'm being accused of cherrypicking?

Why did you ask me if I thought 'it was right'.
Isn't in the nature of providing an example that one must cherrpick?

On the point about the Irish state above, are you saying that legitimated the murder of Brian Stack, as well as Gardai and an Irish soldier?

Are you saying they would have happened outside of the conflict/war?

...And Justice

Phoebas wrote: »

You need to try responding to what I actually post, not your own imagining of it.
I didn't say that nothing would happen to Gerry Adams if he opened his gob. I said that this wasn't his motivation for keeping his gob shut.
His motivation for keeping his gob shut is because Gerry Adams wants to protect Brian Stack's murderer.

Because you personally don't like Gerry, he's protecting a murderer. No other reason? Why did he ask for a truth commission? You know why.

Jawgap

...And Justice wrote: »

I didn't say that and you know that. The IRA is suspected of doing it.

Really? Then why mention Adams would be at risk from the "Belfast arm of SF" then equate his potential fate with the actual fate of Donaldson?

...And Justice wrote: »

Gerry Adams would be a dead man walking if he opened his mouth, the Belfast arm of SF would kill him, look what happened to Donaldson, look at the documentary about it on YT, Gerry in an interview that he knew he was a gonner and there was nothing he could do about it, touts are killed end of story. So trying to compare an unarmed woman being shot by a drug dealer and Gerry ratting up IRA men are two totally different things.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why did you ask me if I thought 'it was right'.
Isn't in the nature of providing an example that one must cherrpick?




Are you saying they would have happened outside of the conflict/war?

Let's leave it, you're not going to answer a simple yes / no question about the murder of unarmed public servants.

What matters not what might have happened in a hypothetical situation, it's what happened.......and when you wonder why people are so put off SF, you might reflect on their support for these acts.

Itssoeasy

...And Justice wrote: »

Jawgap wrote: »

SF killed Donaldson?

I thought SF were a political party?

I didn't say that and you know that. The IRA is suspected of doing it.

Yeah but you said that Gerry Adams was in the organisation for 40 years and Gerry has stated over and over again he was never in the IRA so its a fair assumption that take from your post that it was Sinn Fein you were talking about.

And Sinn Fein is a political party and you normally aren't shot and killed for airing the dirty Laundry of the party in public in Ireland. I mean you'd probably wouldn't be flavour of the month but killed no.

Phoebas

...And Justice wrote: »

Because you personally don't like Gerry, he's protecting a murderer. No other reason?

I doubt my like or dislike for Adams form any part of his thought process.:eek:

...And Justice wrote: »

Why did he ask for a truth commission? You know why.

I really don't know why.
Maybe you are correct when you say he asked for it 'because he knew nobody would be willing to take part, especially the loyalists'.

blackwhite

...And Justice wrote: »

Gerry Adams would be a dead man walking if he opened his mouth, the Belfast arm of SF would kill him, look what happened to Donaldson, look at the documentary about it on YT, Gerry in an interview that he knew he was a gonner and there was nothing he could do about it, touts are killed end of story. So trying to compare an unarmed woman being shot by a drug dealer and Gerry ratting up IRA men are two totally different things.

Slip of the tongue there?:p

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Adams is not a journalist, SF is not a state - it's a false equivocation to suggest otherwise.

You might as well as argue that if Adams was a priest sure wouldn't he be bound by the seal of the confessional.

What self appointed right (it is a self appointed one) has a journalist to 'protect' a killer?
Who decides what a state keeps secret, in relation to Dublin/Monaghan bombings, for instance?

These are not inalienable rights, a subsequent government could rescind the secrecy and say the cover-up was wrong.
SF have merely taken the same right onto themselves.

From the get go (the GFA negotiations and agreement) SF and the IRA have been clear on this issue. Both governments signed an agreement that included a pledge that they would set up truth recovery processes specifically because of what these organisations and 20 years later we are going up yet another cul de sac echoing with the same faux outrage about stuff that has been clear from the very start of the process and for very clear and transparent reasons.

...And Justice

Jawgap wrote: »

Let's leave it, you're not going to answer a simple yes / no question about the murder of unarmed public servants.

What matters not what might have happened in a hypothetical situation, it's what happened.......and when you wonder why people are so put off SF, you might reflect on their support for these acts.

Yeah we are going round in circles, ironically there's a surge of people joining them and the public don't seem to be put off at all. If anything they're getting stronger and FG/FF are having panic attacks. I think Gerry Adams needs to retire and let the clean folks in the south run SF.

...And Justice

blackwhite wrote: »

Slip of the tongue there?:p

Not really, I just read articles like every one else, SF is run from the north and there's obviously a few dodgy characters up there in the organisation.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Let's leave it, you're not going to answer a simple yes / no question about the murder of unarmed public servants.

What matters not what might have happened in a hypothetical situation, it's what happened.......and when you wonder why people are so put off SF, you might reflect on their support for these acts.

What does 'legitimised' mean here? No murder is 'legitimised'.
The chief prison officer in Portlaoise prison where prison officers complained about the ill treatment they were forced to hand out to prisoners, was shot by a member of the IRA who were being held en masse in the above prison.

The IRA exist because of the conflict/war and they were in Portlaoise Prison because of the conflict/war.

Was the killing related to the conflict/war? I'll let you work that one out yourself.

In 1984 the Assistant General Secretary of the Prison Officers Association, Tom Hoare strongly criticized conditions within the prison stating that staff were forced by senior management in the prison to use excessive force against prisoners. He also criticized the then Governor of Portlaoise Prison, William Reilly, and the Minister of Justice Michael Noonan stating "I accuse the minister of negligence in this area. I accuse the management of Portlaoise Prison of being indifferent to complaints. I would hate to be a prisoner making a complaint".[6] At the Prison Officers Association 1984 conference a delegate from Portlaoise Prison, Larry O'Neill, told the conference: "If Hitler wanted generals today he would find plenty of them in Portlaoise. After the war the Nazis said many of them were doing their duty and that is what the management in Portlaoise are saying today"

Interesting to note the Minister of Justice at the time.
I think the same FG government introduced censorship of SF at the time too and the Heavy Gang.

Jawgap

...And Justice wrote: »

Yeah we are going round in circles, ironically there's a surge of people joining them and the public don't seem to be put off at all. If anything they're getting stronger and FG/FF are having panic attacks. I think Gerry Adams needs to retire and let the clean folks in the south run SF.

Not really, you asserted that a Dail deputy is a risk of being physically coerced, if not killed, by a branch of a political party that operates in this State! For potentially doing something a lot of people would regard as being the correct and civic minded thing to do.

It's actually incredible that people would think that such a thing is ok.

I'm all for political retribution, but politicians shouldn't have to be in fear of physical harm from their party.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What does 'legitimised' mean here? No murder is 'legitimised'.
The chief prison officer in Portlaoise prison where prison officers complained about the ill treatment they were forced to hand out to prisoners, was shot by a member of the IRA who were being held en masse in the above prison.

The IRA exist because of the conflict/war and they were in Portlaoise Prison because of the conflict/war.

Was the killing related to the conflict/war? I'll let you work that one out yourself.



Interesting to note the Minister of Justice at the time.
I think the same FG government introduced censorship of SF at the time too and the Heavy Gang.

Again with the history and the double standards.

If Amnesty wanted to investigate the IRA's human rights abuses to whom do they go? Where are the records of punishment and detention held?

...And Justice

Jawgap wrote: »

Not really, you asserted that a Dail deputy is a risk of being physically coerced, if not killed, by a branch of a political party that operates in this State! For potentially doing something a lot of people would regard as being the correct and civic minded thing to do.

It's actually incredible that people would think that such a thing is ok.

I'm all for political retribution, but politicians shouldn't have to be in fear of physical harm from their party.

I agree, but would you risk it? Just to add to the Donaldson assassination, if you do a bit of online reading, that wasn't sanctioned, it was believed to be rougue IRA men too.So would risk it?

Jawgap

...And Justice wrote: »

I agree, but would you risk it? Just to add to the Donaldson assassination, if you do a bit of online reading, that wasn't sanctioned, it was believed to be rougue IRA men too.So would risk it?

You believe the Belfast element of SF represent a threat to the physical safet of Adams?

Have to say I'm an admirer of their party discipline but even I didn't think 'uncomradely behaviour' would be met with physical retribution!

...And Justice

Jawgap wrote: »

You believe the Belfast element of SF represent a threat to the physical safet of Adams?

Have to say I'm an admirer of their party discipline but even I didn't think 'uncomradely behaviour' would be met with physical retribution!

Maybe, I wouldn't chance rubbing the old guard up the wrong way. Unfortunately the war was less than 20 years ago, so there's bound to be a few nut jobs still around. They're probably not in SF as per se, but were provos.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Again with the history and the double standards.

If Amnesty wanted to investigate the IRA's human rights abuses to whom do they go? Where are the records of punishment and detention held?

That wouldn't be a complete deflection would it by any chance.

It is a 'historical' case and you don't wish to review the history or context?

There is a very good chance that no records exist for Amnesty to review. Other than that what is your point, we have already established that what happened during the conflict/war was not right. In fact I am not aware of any war, ever that was 'right' or even respected human rights. If you know of one, I am all ears.

Maybe, you could tell us all what you think would happen if Adams reveals what he knows here and somebody is arrested and charged and then the next family asks and somebody else gets charged and convicted then the next one asks...I'm all ears on this because it seems to me that what you will have is a whole new generation of families looking for answers.
It is that stark, you make your choice as to the best course to take. I know I have.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That wouldn't be a complete deflection would it by any chance.

It is a 'historical' case and you don't wish to review the history or context?

There is a very good chance that no records exist for Amnesty to review. Other than that what is your point, we have already established that what happened during the conflict/war was not right. In fact I am not aware of any war, ever that was 'right' or even respected human rights. If you know of one, I am all ears.

Maybe, you could tell us all what you think would happen if Adams reveals what he knows here and somebody is arrested and charged and then the next family asks and somebody else gets charged and convicted then the next one asks...I'm all ears on this because it seems to me that what you will have is a whole new generation of families looking for answers.
It is that stark, you make your choice as to the best course to take. I know I have.

How convenient for an organisation advocating for a truth commission!

Talk about the 'get out of jail' free card!!

As for Adams revealing what he knows - I've already said that's not going to happen so I don't see the point of discussing hypotheticals - I'm not big on them or counter-factuals, I leave them to the first years

And if you don't believe war is ever right, then you need to widen your reading to encompass some of the work covering "jus bellum iustum" doctrines.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

How convenient for an organisation advocating for a truth commission!

Talk about the 'get out of jail' free card!!

As for Adams revealing what he knows - I've already said that's not going to happen so I don't see the point of discussing hypotheticals - I'm not big on them or counter-factuals, I leave them to the first years

Well then, you must agree with the OP that this course, where politicians involve themselves in a known cul de sac of high moral grandstanding is a complete waste of everyone's time.
What is the imperative for failed politics? Try something else.
What is the stated goal of politicians here? Oh yeh, to bring closure for all families affected by the conflict. Marks out of ten for that?

And if you don't believe war is ever right, then you need to widen your reading to encompass some of the work covering "jus bellum iustum" doctrines.

So all conflicts/war must follow theological and intellectual principles. Who knew!

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well then, you must agree with the OP that this course, where politicians involve themselves in a known cul de sac of high moral grandstanding is a complete waste of everyone's time.
What is the imperative for failed politics? Try something else.
What is the stated goal of politicians here? Oh yeh, to bring closure for all families affected by the conflict. Marks out of ten for that?



So all conflicts/war must follow theological and intellectual principles. Who knew!

Agree with the OP? I thought you were the OP!

The imperative and goal of politics is the acquisition and retention of power for its own sake - has been since we first organised as communities and societies. You don't believe all that nonsense that all politicians spout about 'service'??

Machiavelli had it about right....

".....the purpose of political power is to maintain itself and to extend itself. It has nothing to do with the welfare of the people. It has nothing to do with principles or ideology or right and wrong.

The welfare of the people, principles, ideology, right and wrong: these are related to the means to the end, but the goal is power."

And you're confusing jus in bello (the conduct of war) with what I wrote jus bellum iustum (the moral justification for war) - it's ok it's a subtle difference.

For example, one of the principles espoused under the jus in bello that Adams and the IRA seem to have had a problem with is 'distinction' - no bombing civilians and the like or shooting unarmed prison officers on the street.

Whereas Aquinian jus bellum iustum would say that war can only be waged by the state.......not by non-state political actors without political authority.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Agree with the OP? I thought you were the OP!

The imperative and goal of politics is the acquisition and retention of power for its own sake - has been since we first organised as communities and societies. You don't believe all that nonsense that all politicians spout about 'service'??

Machiavelli had it about right....



And you're confusing jus in bello (the conduct of war) with what I wrote jus bellum iustum (the moral justification for war) - it's ok it's a subtle difference.

For example, one of the principles espoused under the jus in bello that Adams and the IRA seem to have had a problem with is 'distinction' - no bombing civilians and the like or shooting unarmed prison officers on the street.

Whereas Aquinian jus bellum iustum would say that war can only be waged by the state.......not by non-state political actors without political authority.

The 'state' that has no interest in the welfare of it's own people?

...And Justice

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'state' that has no interest in the welfare of it's own people?

The "state" and British state didn't give a fiddlers about the Catholics in the north and they were second class citizens hence the uprising. Most companies including delorean had protestant management and Catholic worker bee's threatening to kill them at any given time. A work colleague worked up there in the 80's. Mad stuff Ted.

osmiumartist

Jawgap wrote: »

Whereas Aquinian jus bellum iustum would say that war can only be waged by the state.......not by non-state political actors without political authority.

Ah, we're back to calling them terrorists and hoping for the best I see.
Try telling a Frenchman that the resistance deserved their executions or a South African that Mandela should never have been released because "jus bellum iustum".

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is a very good chance that no records exist for Amnesty to review. Other than that what is your point, we have already established that what happened during the conflict/war was not right. In fact I am not aware of any war, ever that was 'right' or even respected human rights. If you know of one, I am all ears.

There are 'rules of war' in existance.
Human rights violations during conflicts, can be prosecuted after the war.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

There are 'rules of war' in existance.
Human rights violations during conflicts, can be prosecuted after the war.

Who made these 'rules'? And how many wars/conflict have they been followed in?

Human rights are a very subjective thing imo looking at history and the world.

...And Justice

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who made these 'rules'? And how many wars/conflict have they been followed in?

Human rights are a very subjective thing imo looking at history and the world.

ISIS don't follow any rules, in fact they make new ways of killing people in the worst possible manner.

Jawgap

osmiumartist wrote: »

Ah, we're back to calling them terrorists and hoping for the best I see.
Try telling a Frenchman that the resistance deserved their executions or a South African that Mandela should never have been released because "jus bellum iustum".

I'm sorry, but where did I call them terrorists?

The wording was deliberately phrased within the philosophy of war argument.

Plus jus bellum iustum is about the initiation of war, not the conduct or resolution of it.......as I said, subtle but important differences.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Human rights are a very subjective thing imo looking at history and the world.

Human rights are not subjective.
The universal declaration of human rights was adopted by the United nations in 1948.

OMD

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who made these 'rules'? And how many wars/conflict have they been followed in?

Geneva convention covers war rules.

...And Justice

...And Justice wrote: »

ISIS don't follow any rules, in fact they make new ways of killing people in the worst possible manner.

And I don't believe anyone thinks that isis observe human rights?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who made these 'rules'? And how many wars/conflict have they been followed in?

Human rights are a very subjective thing imo looking at history and the world.

Some info here....

Hague Conventions, 1899 & 1907

osmiumartist

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm sorry, but where did I call them terrorists?

You were claiming war can only be waged by a state. Or are you now withdrawing that claim?

OMD

Jawgap wrote: »

Some info here....

Hague Conventions, 1899 & 1907

There are 11 crimes which constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and which are applicable only to international armed conflicts:[64]

Willful killing
Torture
Inhumane treatment
Biological experiments
Willfully causing great suffering
Destruction and appropriation of property
Compelling service in hostile forces
Denying a fair trial
Unlawful deportation and transfer
Unlawful confinement
Taking hostages

So IRA is ****ed then

Jawgap

osmiumartist wrote: »

You were claiming war can only be waged by a state. Or are you now withdrawing that claim?

Me?

Gosh no......Thomas Acquinas did......hence my use of the adjective 'Acquinian'......

Jawgap wrote: »

Whereas Aquinian jus bellum iustum would say that war can only be waged by the state.......not by non-state political actors without political authority.

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who made these 'rules'? And how many wars/conflict have they been followed in?

Human rights are a very subjective thing imo looking at history and the world.

That's a dangerous road to go down. We should ignore Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy, Shoot to Kill?

...And Justice

OMD wrote: »

There are 11 crimes which constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and which are applicable only to international armed conflicts:[64]

Willful killing
Torture
Inhumane treatment
Biological experiments
Willfully causing great suffering
Destruction and appropriation of property
Compelling service in hostile forces
Denying a fair trial
Unlawful deportation and transfer
Unlawful confinement
Taking hostages

So IRA is ****ed then

The Americans are fcuked so.....

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Human rights are not subjective.
The universal declaration of human rights was adopted by the United nations in 1948.

Was this before or after they let Churchill off a war crimes charge for carpet bombing the sh*t out of Dresden and Cologne?
Forgive me if I seem dismissive of the U.N. which was conceived and has a veto at it's core for the 5 nations that set it up.
it should have been in Derry and Belfast when a sectarian statelet exploded because it was ignored by one of the UNs founding members , funnily enough (not really, tragically enough)

osmiumartist

Jawgap wrote: »

Me?

Gosh no......Thomas Acquinas did......hence my use of the adjective 'Acquinian'......

Ah right, so you were just completely randomly chucking around quotes from Aquinas that you now claim you neither endorse nor feel are relevant.
Thanks so much for that. Anything else random to add?

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Was this before or after they let Churchill off a war crimes charge for carpet bombing the shot out of Dresden and Cologne?
Forgive me if I seem dismissive of the U.N. which was conceived and has a veto at it's core for the 5 nations that set it up.
it should have been in Derry and Belfast when a sectarian statelet exploded because it was ignored by one of the UNs founding members , funnily (not really, tragically enough) enough.

Yeah, everyone bandies that one about......the firebombing of Tokyo (Operation MEETINGHOUSE) is a better example......even LeMay said he'd have been tried as a war criminal if they'd lost the war.

Victors write the history, which is why SF can't whitewash away crimes like Brian Stack's murder.

Jawgap

osmiumartist wrote: »

Ah right, so you were just completely randomly chucking around quotes from Aquinas that you now claim you neither endorse nor feel are relevant.
Thanks so much for that. Anything else random to add?

Pretty much it.....there are different strands to the debate and discussion around the doctrine.....I like Acquinas' views, not because they particularly agree with. One but because of the elegance of the writing and argument.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Yeah, everyone bandies that one about......the firebombing of Tokyo (Operation MEETINGHOUSE) is a better example......even LeMay said he'd have been tried as a war criminal if they'd lost the war.

Victors write the history, which is why SF can't whitewash away crimes like Brian Stack's murder.

Think you might have defeated your own argument there.
Victors indeed.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Think you might have defeated your own argument there.
Victors indeed.

There's no argument - the victors write the history. 'Twas always thus since even before Thucydides.

...And Justice

Jawgap wrote: »

There's no argument - the victors write the history. 'Twas always thus since even before Thucydides.

Yeah the Yankees have a lot to answer for.

the_syco

osmiumartist wrote: »

Ah, we're back to calling them terrorists and hoping for the best I see.
Try telling a Frenchman that the resistance deserved their executions or a South African that Mandela should never have been released because "jus bellum iustum".

So, can we call them terrorists when the IRA went on "fund raising" activities in RoI banks and post offices? Or just common criminals?

Jawgap

...And Justice wrote: »

Yeah the Yankees have a lot to answer for.

They certainly do.

Gerry Adams expresses anger after being denied entry to White House

K-9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Think you might have defeated your own argument there.
Victors indeed.

The sides are held to different standards though, the state forces are supposed to abide by conventions and rules.

Eg. The British got taken to the ECHR for breaches of human rights in Castlereagh.

IRA courts handed out murder sentences and kneecapped young lads.