Does anyone actually believe that Gerry Adams wasn't in the IRA?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It is why they were such a force to be reckoned with at the time.

The Provisional IRA never had any popular support when they were going around killing people.

They were more or less the only 'force' nationalists could vote for and they failed them, again and again.

Check out how most of the nationalist electorate switched their votes once another party developed and achieved for them.

SafeSurfer

maccored wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Neither John Hume nor Seamus Mallon were stuck without a choice in the way that so many provos claimed. A sad attempt at an excuse for inexcusable actions.

thats why the SDLP are such a force to be reckoned with these days is it? oh no - sure they're dead in the water because they didnt represent people as well as other nationalist parties did.

And yet Sinn Fein only overtook the SDLP once they gave up the armed struggle. Maybe the ballot box/armalite strategy was flawed.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You mean not everybody approved of the agreement and so believed violence to be legitimate? Similar to today’s dissidents who believe the Good Friday Agreement fails them. No?

You can legitimise the dissidents if you wish, I don't.

You can answer the question if you wish. And the previous one about earlier dissidents.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

People didn’t choose to use violence yet some people chose not to use violence?
Was there a choice or not?

Of course there was a choice, there is always a choice. The history of the world is littered with similar choices made, both before and after the IRA were active.

There will always be a choice. Are you saying that in this 'different era' of 'differing standards' there will never be a choice made to use violence again to achieve aims?

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

It is why they were such a force to be reckoned with at the time.

The Provisional IRA never had any popular support when they were going around killing people.

They were more or less the only 'force' nationalists could vote for and they failed them, again and again.

Check out how most of the nationalist electorate switched their votes once another party developed and achieved for them.

The correlation with increased Sinn Fein support and the end of the armed struggle is more tangible than achieving anything for the electorate except normalising partition.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

People didn’t choose to use violence yet some people chose not to use violence?
Was there a choice or not?

Of course there was a choice, there is always a choice. The history of the world is littered with similar choices made, both before and after the IRA were active.

There will always be a choice. Are you saying that in this 'different era' of 'differing standards' there will never be a choice made to use violence again to achieve aims?

No I was responding to a previous posts assertion that there was no choice but violence.

James Brown

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The correlation with increased Sinn Fein support and the end of the armed struggle is more tangible than achieving anything for the electorate except normalising partition.

Not so, they didn't stand down with things as was. We had a Good Friday Agreement, (thanks in part to the armed struggle) which facilitated that. An agreement fought for by all sides except some dissidents, one of which was made a Senator by FG/Lab. So if you want to talk about people hanging on to the way it was before the GFA, talk to FG/Lab. The way it stands, FF and SF are the only main political parties that haven't cosied up to any dissidents.
So Gerry was a 'RA man?

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The correlation with increased Sinn Fein support and the end of the armed struggle is more tangible than achieving anything for the electorate except normalising partition.

Sinn Fein before the end of the conflict/war were censored/shot at/killed/pilloried by the media/intimidated, going about normal constituency work, I think they built a remarkable party in those circumstances. There was nothing permanent about the GFA when first signed, the NEVER NEVER antics of the DUP saw to that. There was every chance of a resumption, this nonsense that people switched their vote because the IRA went on ceasefire is just that, self serving dis-ingenuous nonsense.
The vote switched because one party 'achieved' for it's electorate - same as it always does anywhere.

The complete collapse of the SDLP is extraordinary in the history of any country, of that there is no doubt.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The correlation with increased Sinn Fein support and the end of the armed struggle is more tangible than achieving anything for the electorate except normalising partition.

Sinn Fein before the end of the conflict/war were censored/shot at/killed/pilloried by the media/intimidated, going about normal constituency work, I think they built a remarkable party in those circumstances. There was nothing permanent about the GFA when first signed, the NEVER NEVER antics of the DUP saw to that. There was every chance of a resumption, this nonsense that people switched their vote because the IRA went on ceasefire is just that, self serving dis-ingenuous nonsense.
The vote switched because one party 'achieved' for it's electorate - same as it always does anywhere.

The complete collapse of the SDLP is extraordinary in the history of any country, of that there is no doubt.

Next you will be telling me the increase in support for the DUP was because of all they achieved for their electorate.
Do you even believe the stuff you write?

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Next you will be telling me the increase in support for the DUP was because of all they achieved for their electorate.
Do you even believe the stuff you write?

The increase in DUP support is because Unionism in general went into 'trench/siege' mode.

Don't tell me you cannot see this either?

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Next you will be telling me the increase in support for the DUP was because of all they achieved for their electorate.
Do you even believe the stuff you write?

The increase in DUP support is because Unionism in general went into 'trench/siege' mode.

Don't tell me you cannot see this either?

Oh, I see. Sinn Féin increased because of their fantastic achievements for their constituents and the DUPs increased due to their siege mentality. The abandonment of the armed struggle didn’t even figure. Thanks for the clarification.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not so, they didn't stand down with things as was. We had a Good Friday Agreement, (thanks in part to the armed struggle) which facilitated that. An agreement fought for by all sides except some dissidents, one of which was made a Senator by FG/Lab. So if you want to talk about people hanging on to the way it was before the GFA, talk to FG/Lab. The way it stands, FF and SF are the only main political parties that haven't cosied up to any dissidents.
So Gerry was a 'RA man?

Nasty disingenuous slandering of Mairia Cahill. Not surprised.

The veil slips again.

blanch152

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you even believe the stuff you write?

I have often pondered that same question. Some of the defence of Sinn Fein and IRA is so unbelievable that I wonder whether people even believe a quarter of what they write.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Nasty disingenuous slandering of Mairia Cahill. Not surprised.

The veil slips again.

No veil to slip. I've posted on that numerous times. She is affiliated with FG, nasty maybe, but slander it is not. You use her and Jean McConville when discussing the weather ffs..

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I have often pondered that same question. Some of the defence of Sinn Fein and IRA is so unbelievable that I wonder whether people even believe a quarter of what they write.

And you keep harping on about 'defending' because people disagree with your viewpoint. Calling out your waffle isn't joining Sinn Fein.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Oh, I see. Sinn Féin increased because of their fantastic achievements for their constituents and the DUPs increased due to their siege mentality. The abandonment of the armed struggle didn’t even figure. Thanks for the clarification.

Like other significant posters on this topic, I see you have a penchant for adding words to what I type.

I never used the word 'fantastic'. SF got the vote because they achieved for their electorate and the vote of those who formerly elected the SDLP.

That is uncontestable.

The DUP 'achieved' for their electorate too. An electorate that desperately tried and tried and are still trying to maintain the status quo and a unionist veto.

I characterise that as a siege mentality - you are free to call it what you want. But I suggest you read a less biased history first.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Oh, I see. Sinn Féin increased because of their fantastic achievements for their constituents and the DUPs increased due to their siege mentality. The abandonment of the armed struggle didn’t even figure. Thanks for the clarification.

Like other significant posters on this topic, I see you have a penchant for adding words to what I type.

I never used the word 'fantastic'. SF got the vote because they achieved for their electorate and the vote of those who formerly elected the SDLP.

That is uncontestable.

The DUP 'achieved' for their electorate too. An electorate that desperately tried and tried and are still trying to maintain the status quo and a unionist veto.

I characterise that as a siege mentality - you are free to call it what you want. But I suggest you read a less biased history first.

Why do you believe it is uncontestable? It is so contestable that political commentators even coined a phrase for it. Sinn Fein’s Peace Dividend.

Words like uncontestable (sic) Have a specific meaning.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not so, they didn't stand down with things as was. We had a Good Friday Agreement, (thanks in part to the armed struggle) which facilitated that. An agreement fought for by all sides except some dissidents, one of which was made a Senator by FG/Lab. So if you want to talk about people hanging on to the way it was before the GFA, talk to FG/Lab. The way it stands, FF and SF are the only main political parties that haven't cosied up to any dissidents.
So Gerry was a 'RA man?

Nasty disingenuous slandering of Mairia Cahill. Not surprised.

The veil slips again.

Hold on, with absolutely no intention of diminishing what happened to Mairia Cahill....what part of referring to her as a dissident with regards to the GFA, or stating that she was stood as a senator by Labour is in any way slanderous? Those are both factual statements.

Blanch, you're a fierce one for pulling in certain names when it suits the agenda to put down SF, in fact I don't believe anyone has mentioned her as much as you on Boards. Don't stoop down to rank hypocrisy.

I suppose I'll be accused of 'defending' SF for pointing that out...

maccored

SafeSurfer wrote: »

People didn’t choose to use violence yet some people chose not to use violence?
Was there a choice or not?

Maybe in your head (ie someone with no life experience at all when it comes to living in the north at that period of time as a young adult) life was as easy as a yes or no decision - but for people who grew up during it, life was a hell of a lot more complicated.

You naively simplified question wont be getting an answer from me because some people did choose violence, some chose activism and some chose politics

maccored

blanch152 wrote: »

It is why they were such a force to be reckoned with at the time.

The Provisional IRA never had any popular support when they were going around killing people.

if they had no support they would have all been caught. use your head - people wouldn't have protected and hid them otherwise.

Oh yes - sure they were all forced to :rolleyes:

SafeSurfer

maccored wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

People didn’t choose to use violence yet some people chose not to use violence?
Was there a choice or not?

Maybe in your head (ie someone with no life experience at all when it comes to living in the north at that period of time as a young adult) life was as easy as a yes or no decision - but for people who grew up during it, life was a hell of a lot more complicated.

You naively simplified question wont be getting an answer from me because some people did choose violence, some chose activism and some chose politics

“You wouldn’t understand”. Always the refrain of someone who cannot explain.

maccored

SafeSurfer wrote: »

“You wouldn’t understand”. Always the refrain of someone who cannot explain.

you patiently dont understand as you have clearly demonstrated many times so far. It is not my job to educate you - you'll have to go do that yourself. Most people do the educating first mind you, before pretending to know what they're talking about

SafeSurfer

maccored wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

“You wouldn’t understand”. Always the refrain of someone who cannot explain.

you patiently dont understand as you have clearly demonstrated many times so far. It is not my job to educate you - you'll have to go do that yourself. Most people do the educating first mind you, before pretending to know what they're talking about

I am patiently trying to understand. Do you mean patently?

maccored

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I am patiently trying to understand. Do you mean patently?

cant you come up with a better response than that? Instead of trying to be a smart@rse, maybe you should read up on the north?

SafeSurfer

maccored wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I am patiently trying to understand. Do you mean patently?

cant you come up with a better response than that? Instead of trying to be a smart@rse, maybe you should read up on the north?

On a serious note could you recommend any book which claims Gerry Adams was never in the IRA?

I am not being a smart arse. I am trying to understand one poster claiming the difference between the dissidents and the provos was the provos didn’t have a choice and you claiming everyone had a choice. So what differentiates between the provos and the dissidents?

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why do you believe it is uncontestable? It is so contestable that political commentators even coined a phrase for it. Sinn Fein’s Peace Dividend.

Words like uncontestable (sic) Have a specific meaning.

What?

SF outstripped the SDLP, completely decimated them in fact. They were NOT at zero when the GFA was signed.

It suits those who have a onesided view of events to portray it as the electorate rewarding SF for the IRA's decommissioning.

They casually and disingenuously ignore the fact that nobody, least of all, SDLP support, was immediately convinced that the violence was over. That belief took a long time to bed in.

The electorate in NI know that the SDLP were not behind the Hume-Adams talks at the start and that they forced him to do a solo run. They didn't forget that when the plaudits and jumping on bandwagons began.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

On a serious note could you recommend any book which claims Gerry Adams was never in the IRA?

I am not being a smart arse. I am trying to understand one poster claiming the difference between the dissidents and the provos was the provos didn’t have a choice and you claiming everyone had a choice. So what differentiates between the provos and the dissidents?

The difference is the existence of the GFA. It's that obvious it shouldn't have to be pointed out tbh.

Forty Seven

When I was growing up he was on the telly a lot but with his voice disguised. Found that a bit shifty.

maccored

SafeSurfer wrote: »

On a serious note could you recommend any book which claims Gerry Adams was never in the IRA?

I am not being a smart arse. I am trying to understand one poster claiming the difference between the dissidents and the provos was the provos didn’t have a choice and you claiming everyone had a choice. So what differentiates between the provos and the dissidents?

nothing differentiates them bar the political environment each exists in (existed for the provos)

People didnt support the provos because they liked people being killed. they supported them because they offered a level of protection the army and RUC did not. Its a debate if the peace process offered nationalists any protection, but the peace process exists int he time of the dissidents. it didnt in the time of the provos. Ive already explained that - particularly sine I was the poster claiming hte provos had no choice. they didnt have one - they hardly even existed in 1970. bloody sunday was probably the biggest recruitment drive the provos ever had

maccored

Forty Seven wrote: »

When I was growing up he was on the telly a lot but with his voice disguised. Found that a bit shifty.

RTE started that lark