Adams & McGuinness and the IRA Army Counil

Villain

The issue of whether or not Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are on the IRA Army Council has been brought up in quite a few threads and recently Sand seems to believe he has presented factual evidence which backs this claim up.

The only evidence that I remember seeing is quotes from Ed Moloney's book about events in the past, which I don't accept proves that Adams & McGuinness are on the IRA Army council. I have seen no evidence that proves they currently sit on the Army Council and Bertie Ahern has stated he does not know if they sit on the Army Council and I believe if such evidence excisted he would have seen it.

So I'd like to see those people who believe Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinnes sit on the IRA Army Council come on here and post the evidence that proves it.

Blub2k4

I believe that they definitely have the ear of the council and do a guest speaker role now and again but I dont believe they actually sit on the council, in fairness do you all actually believe that the council meets up and sits formally at any point?

Thread stays open but the poll is closed.
It was made clear quite some time ago that polls are not being permitted here,simply because of the disruption that a huge number of them caused.
We let one through,unaware that the change to VB3 probably by default re-opened the ability to create polls on this forum.

I and the other moderators don't want to be sifting through various details at this time to investigate who votes 3 , 4 or 5 times in polls such as these either.
That job is best left to where necessary ie when people are using multiple accounts to circumvent bans or troll.
*There will be no discussion on the decision in relation to this poll*

Now back on topic.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Thread stays open but the poll is closed.
It was made clear quite some time ago that polls are not being permitted here,simply because of the disruption that a huge number of them caused.
We let one through,unaware that the change to VB3 probably by default re-opened the ability to create polls on this forum.

I and the other moderators don't want to be sifting through various details at this time to investigate who votes 3 , 4 or 5 times in polls such as these either.
That job is best left to where necessary ie when people are using multiple accounts to circumvent bans or troll.
*There will be no discussion on the decision in relation to this poll*

Now back on topic.

Are you willing to discuss this in feedback then Earthman??

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Are you willing to discuss this in feedback then Earthman??

Certainly.
My apologies,I meant to say there will be *no discussion on this decision in this thread*

cdebru

TBH

irish 1 this is a bit of a waste of time it is something that cannot be proved one way or the other

the simple fact is that none of us know for sure wether they are or are not
adams and mcguinness say they are not you and a lot of people take them at their word others like sand dont believe a word that comes out of any SF persons mouth

you are never going to convince him even if you could get the actual army council to go public he would not believe it

Of course Adams is partly to blame for this himself his denial of ever having been a member of the IRA let alone the army council does not really stand up
so obviously people can say if he lies about wether he was ever an IRA member then he could be also lying when he says he is not on the army council

I understand why adams denies ever being but a member but as martin says the dogs in the street know it

Villain

In another thread myself and sand has this discussion

sand wrote:

irish1 wrote:

In Your opinion! there is no factual evidence to support your claim.

There is plenty. You refuse to accept or counter it. You simply try to pretend it doesnt exist. I have posted it several times and you have never, ever been able to counter it.

So I want him to post this evidence up so I can discuss it, seems pretty straight forward to me.

Villain

Still waiting sand??

Nuttzz

irish1 wrote:

The only evidence that I remember seeing is quotes from Ed Moloney's book about events in the past, which I don't accept proves that Adams & McGuinness are on the IRA Army council.

To turn this on its head, there is little evidence that proves they are NOT on the army council, So wheres your evidence they arent on the army council?

Eoghan-psych

Nuttzz wrote:

To turn this on its head, there is little evidence that proves they are NOT on the army council, So wheres your evidence they arent on the army council?

This doesn't make sense. The burden of proof, always, is on the person making the positive claim - it is up to those who say Adams and McGuinness *are* on the Army Council to prove it.

To illustrate this, prove the Easter Bunny doesn't sit on the board of CIE.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether they do or do not sit on the Coucil. Recent developments - such as Adams' calling for a *complete* cessation of violence - are being made as leaders of the Sinn Fein party, which has become a legitimate political party in its own right. In the south, SF gets votes for a *much* wider platform than a united Ireland. The recent events serve to distance the leadership of the provos from SF, even if it isn't distinct in *actual* terms [not sure if I've worded that sensibly, but anyway].

Nuttzz

Eoghan-psych wrote:

To illustrate this, prove the Easter Bunny doesn't sit on the board of CIE.

http://www.cie.ie/about_us/board_members.asp

The burden of proof, always, is on the person making the positive claim - it is up to those who say Adams and McGuinness *are* on the Army Council to prove it.

Ed Moloneys book is good enough for me, but just because some people dont want to believe it doesnt make it untrue

Villain

And just because some people want to believe it doesn't make it true Nuttzz, is that the only evidence to back up the claim??

Blub2k4

irish1 wrote:

And just because some people want to believe it doesn't make it true Nuttzz, is that the only evidence to back up the claim??

... well there is that, and the dogs in the street or something .... :rolleyes:

bonkey

Isn't it funny how people will vary the standards of proof they require for something to be true or not, depending on whether or not they believe it?

How many times have we heard Republican supporters use little more then "well, I believe him when he says it" when it comes to believing whatever it is their side are pushing this week, only to turn around and ask for documentation, proof, and ideally a court-endorsed conviction (presumably from a court that has no history of ever having made questionable decisions) before something that is detrimental to their cause should even be considered as being potentially true.

Of course...you can replace "Republican supporters" with "anti-Republicans" in that sentence, and it remains just about as correct and valid an observation.

jc

Blub2k4

bonkey wrote:

Isn't it funny how people will vary the standards of proof they require for something to be true or not, depending on whether or not they believe it?

How many times have we heard Republican supporters use little more then "well, I believe him when he says it" when it comes to believing whatever it is their side are pushing this week, only to turn around and ask for documentation, proof, and ideally a court-endorsed conviction (presumably from a court that has no history of ever having made questionable decisions) before something that is detrimental to their cause should even be considered as being potentially true.

Of course...you can replace "Republican supporters" with "anti-Republicans" in that sentence, and it remains just about as correct and valid an observation.

jc

Yes funny, this is the politics forum :rolleyes:

Villain

bonkey wrote:

Isn't it funny how people will vary the standards of proof they require for something to be true or not, depending on whether or not they believe it?

How many times have we heard Republican supporters use little more then "well, I believe him when he says it" when it comes to believing whatever it is their side are pushing this week, only to turn around and ask for documentation, proof, and ideally a court-endorsed conviction (presumably from a court that has no history of ever having made questionable decisions) before something that is detrimental to their cause should even be considered as being potentially true.

Of course...you can replace "Republican supporters" with "anti-Republicans" in that sentence, and it remains just about as correct and valid an observation.

jc

The problem is Bonkey people post statements and present those statements as facts without any proof. I have no problem with someone having beliefs but thats all they are beliefs if they want to say it's true then post evidence.

oscarBravo

Eoghan-psych wrote:

The burden of proof, always, is on the person making the positive claim...

Not strictly true. As I understand it, if you make a claim of unfair dismissal against a former employer, the burden of proof is on the employer.

Sand

Still waiting sand??

Well, Ive been waiting months for you to actually do anything more than go "lalalalala I cant hear you" when I post the below. Ive posted it 3 times for you, this would be the 4th time I think. Youve never countered a single thing on it. Most of it I collected in about 30 minutes to back up the fact that SF/IRA are a single organisation, but theres enough on it about the Army Council membership as well.

Now seeing as were discussing a subversive organisation that does not print its membership, the burden of proof will never be enough for you - youll have to approach it the way you approach the idea of the majority of catholics in NI supporting SF/IRA punishment beatings - but the Gardai havent made any arms seizures in a good while, so does that mean there are no arms dumps out there?

Sinn Fein/IRA
http://www.sinnfein.ie/leadership

Gerry Adams, President:
Convicted IRA bomber Dolours Price, described Gerry Adams as her commanding officer at the time of her involvement in a 4 car bomb on London, March 8th, 1973 at a republican event in February 2001 – Irish Echo Newspaper Corp, March 2001.

His father was a IRA member convicted for shooting RUC officers.

He was interned in 1971, but was senior enough in some republican organisation to be released in July 1972 to take part in secret talks between the IRA and NI Secretary Whitelaw. He was 23 years old. He did not become president of SF for another 11 years.

Has refused to confirm or deny his IRA membership, claiming he could get 10 years for it.

Joe Cahill, Honorary Vice President – Died July 2004:

Self confessed IRA member. Sentenced to death for murdering a RUC man, commuted to life, released after 7 years under an amnesty program.

Commander of the Provisional IRA in west Belfast during the 1970s. Arrested in 1973 for smuggling arms into Ireland on board the Claudia.

Founded Irish Northern Aid in the US to get funds for the IRA murders.

Pat Doherty, Vice President:

Born in Glasgow, Nicknamed Papa Doc, His brother was a member of the IRA Balcombe Street Gang. Identified by police intelligence to be a member of the PIRA army council, which he has always denied.

Mitchel McLaughlin, Chairperson:

A friend of McGuiness’ from back in the days when they were hurling petrol bombs in Derry 1969. As leader of SF in Derry he’s gone on record at the Bloody Sunday inquiry as never asking his colleague McGuiness what he was doing as part of the IRA delegation for the 1972 talks. Presumably he never asked Gerry Adams either. He is clearly the prototype of SFs new wave of supporters – either very stupid, or very naïve.

Despite this he is one of the more respectable faces of SFs leadership – has even gone on record as claiming that SF want to get rid of the IRA. May want to include the disclaimer: sometime, in the undefined future.

Gerry Kelly, Belfast:
Given life sentence in 1973 for killing 1 person and injuring 250 in bomb attacks in England.

Escaped from the maze prison in 1983, one prison warder died after being stabbed with a chisel. Kelly shot another in the head. Escaped to Amsterdam where he was recaptured in 1986. His flat contained cash, fake passport, maps and the keys to a container that held 14 rifles, 100,000 rounds of ammunition and about a ton of nitro-benzine.

Has spent 19 years in prison. Served only a short sentence after his extradition from Holland due to conditions on the extradition.

Has stated he has no regrets about the death of the prison officer who died during the escape from the Maze.

Martin McGuiness, Derry:
2nd in command of the IRA in Derry from the early 70s. Travelled as part of the IRA delegation that secretly met with NI secretary Whitelaw in 1972.

Imprisoned several times in the Republic in connection with IRA activities but has always denied he ever became Chief of Staff for the IRA, despite many claims to the contrary. Renowned for promising informers who had fled IRA threats that they would be safe if they returned and had a little chat with the boys.

Persuaded Frank Hegartys mother to get him home to Belfast with a promise of safety – within two weeks he was abducted, tortured, murdered and dumped in Castlederg, Country Tyrone.

Francie Molloy, Tyrone:
Stated on November 22nd 1998 at an address to Cullyhana republican , that ‘negotiations is simply another phase in that [republican] struggle’ and if the IRA did not get what they wanted at the talks ‘we simply go back to what we know best’

Note that its him saying we, not me. He may need to receive further education in Sfspeak and brush up on his naivety before he’s allowed to speak in public again.

Arnie O'Connell, Cork:

Served 18 years in Portlaoise for the murder of Eamonn Ryan, during a bank robbery in Waterford, 1979. Also charged with membership of the PIRA and armed robbery arising from the same incident.

At the commemoration of Hugh Hehir in 1997, a fellow IRA man shot dead by Garda Special Branch in 1988, he stated that there will be no decommissioning until the British leave Ireland.

Martin Ferris, Kerry:
Convicted of gun running, IRA membership and assault.



IRA Army Council
The IRA Army Council is made up of Gerry Adams, Martin Ferris,Brian Keenan, Thomas Slab" Murphy, Pat Doherty and Martin McGuinness who took up the post of IRA Chief of Staff. Compare that list - which is published openly without a challenge by those involved - to the list of SF members I provided......

Now - If you are convinced Adams and Co arent army Council members how come this can be printed about them http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nire...,582078,00.html by a well known paper and Adams doesnt dare sue?

If I was accused of being on the IRA army council Id sue and have that article removed/altered. Adams is well known, he must have witnesses able to account for his whereabouts if he wasnt meeting with the other 6 members of the Army council?

Accept reality - the SF leadership is heavily dominated by known, convicted and admitted IRA men. 4 of the SF leadership sit on the 7 man IRA Army council. Whichever way you look at it, either SF run the IRA or the IRA run SF.

And before you cast doubt on the paper, remember you say that we should trust Adams when he says republicans have committed to the peace process - even though the IMC decided that republicans had not committed - but Adams is a known liar and opportunist. He denied that Garda McCabes killers were IRA men - hes know campaigning for their release as IRA men. The hypocrite.

The Observer has named all of these men as leaders of a terrorist organisation charged with some of the worst atrocities in Irish and British history. Ive not heard of any successful libel case against them since, and the claim remains unretracted - the editors were happy to publish it because they can draw upon reams and reams of Irish and British police intelligence agents who will confirm that list, intelligence so good that it completely compromised the IRA to the point where even the hardcore had to accept they couldnt win, and kept the RIRAs Kilcock cell on an extremely tight leash.

Generally Editors dont publish stuff if they cant back it up - or theyll get sued - ask Piers Morgan. Generally if youre the innocent victim of a smear campaign youll sue to protect your name. Adams hasnt afaik. Neither has anyone else on that list.

Oh and with all this talk of opinons and facts....

Fact One: Adams was part of the IRA delegation to negotiate with Whitelaw.

Fact Two: Convicted IRA bomber has said Adams was her commanding officer.

Fact Three: Adams has been named as a member of the Army Council of the IRA along with 3 other SF politicians in a well known paper, based on Irish and British police intelligence.

Fact Four: Adams has not sued to clear his good name, the article has not been retracted, the Observer has not apologised and not paid him compensation last I heard.

No one has yet presented a plausible conclusion other than Adams has been high in the chain of command of the IRA for a long time, is now on the Army Council and hasnt sued because hed lose the case. Or are some people waiting for the IRA to publish a guest list for their annual Christmas Party in the national papers before they see the truth?

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Jonathan Swift

EDIT; It looks like the Observer link is broken, so I went and found some others....

This one names McGuiness as a member of IRA Army Council

Heres the one I think I linked to originally though my link is now broken - it list the army council, it says the Army Council directs SF conventions - this isnt worthy of suing for the sake of Middle Irelands votes? Theyll announce disbandment but wont sue?

cdebru

Sand wrote:

Well, Ive been waiting months for you to actually do anything more than go "lalalalala I cant hear you" when I post the below. Ive posted it 3 times for you, this would be the 4th time I think. Youve never countered a single thing on it. Most of it I collected in about 30 minutes to back up the fact that SF/IRA are a single organisation, but theres enough on it about the Army Council membership as well.

Now seeing as were discussing a subversive organisation that does not print its membership, the burden of proof will never be enough for you - youll have to approach it the way you approach the idea of the majority of catholics in NI supporting SF/IRA punishment beatings - but the Gardai havent made any arms seizures in a good while, so does that mean there are no arms dumps out there?




Jonathan Swift

EDIT; It looks like the Observer link is broken, so I went and found some others....

This one names McGuiness as a member of IRA Army Council

Heres the one I think I linked to originally though my link is now broken - it list the army council, it says the Army Council directs SF conventions - this isnt worthy of suing for the sake of Middle Irelands votes? Theyll announce disbandment but wont sue?

sand all you have posted is proof that former members of the IRA when they become politically involved join Sinn Fein hardly a shock they are not going to join the DUP are they

WTF has gerry adams father to do with anything
or pat dohertys brother

and arnie oconnells statement what is the point of that we all know he was wrong there has been decommissioning

the people named all deny that they are on the army council


fact one adams was in the IRA he denies it that does not proof he is on the army council

fact two i see you have no problem taking the word of a IRA bomber when it suits you still does not mean he is on the army council even if you accept he was the O/C in belfast in the 70s

fact three it said it in the paper it must be true surely the Iraq war if it has tought us nothing else dont trust intelligence sources especially unamed ones in a sunday paper


fact four what do you think the chances of adams winning a libel case what barrister would take it
has his reputation been damaged by the article for example probably not I mean do you thin k any less of him than you did before in fact a claim like that could actually have people have a higher regard for him in certain circles

Rock Climber

cdebru wrote:

has his reputation been damaged by the article for example probably not I mean do you thin k any less of him than you did before in fact a claim like that could actually have people have a higher regard for him in certain circles

Ah that old chessnut again...Army council membership is a prestigous thing...
Tell me does it pay well do you think

Villain

Sand sand sand, there is no factual evidence in that post which proves Adams and McGuinness are on the IRA Army Council.

In relation to Gerry all you have is an accusation by a convicted bomber and the fact that he was interned then released for talks. This all relates to the 1970's.

In relation to Martin McGuinness you simply tell us about his past in the IRA nothing about his present.

Seriously sand come back when you have some real evidence, all you are going on is the past. We all know many members of Sinn Fein have a dark past but they have moved on and are now part of a party that is supported by the majority of Nationalists in their search for peace.

You have proven nothing other than you have no real evidence, Pat Rabbite was a member of a party that was funded by bank robberies in the past does that mean anything today? I don't believe so, people have moved on.

Come back to me when you have some real proof that proves Adams and McGuinness are currently members of the IRA Army Council.

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

Pat Rabbite was a member of a party that was funded by bank robberies in the past does that mean anything today? I don't believe so, people have moved on

I think if you ask Pat Rabbitte if his old friends were doing criminal acts when they robbed banks,he might have different answer that Adams would have for his old friends
Also I think you'll not find Rabbitte lauding murderers at his Ard Fheis either.

Now what was that you were saying about moving on?

Victor

The Indo (?) suggested the other day that Adams, McGuinness, Kelly (people tend not to mention him) and Doherty would be looking in the mirror when asking the IRA to move.

Villain

Rock Climber wrote:

Now what was that you were saying about moving on?

Sand is the one who keeps bringing it up that he has offered evidence and I haven't countered it. I'm just looking for the evidence all I've got so far is few story's about what Sinn Fein members were up to nearly 30 years ago.

Stabshauptmann

The IRA split over the decision to allow SF take seats in RoI and NI, particularly Adams. Why does the IRA care whether ex-members enter politics or not. The supposed claim that Sf and IRA split came after Adams had rose to president.

Thus Admas became President of SF while still a member of the IRA.

What rank did Admas have in the IRA? He took part in several negotiations long before SF represented any sizable proportion of NI nationalists or he was President of SF. Its fair to say he had a senior position.

Does he still have that senior position. Im going to go rummaging for the article but someone might save me the bother: very recently he was photographed with a band of IRA volunteers. Its fair to say he is still connected to the IRA, that the IRA supports him/SF at least. I accept that doesnt prove he is still a member.

However, when one examines the second split in the PIRA, McKevitt tried to intoduce a motion forcing SF members to resign their IRA positions. An end to the armilite and ballot box strategy. The majority of the organisation rejected this. Hence we know there to be overlap in SF and IRA membership and to be a lot of support for the Adams leadership in SF. But if SF members were not in the IRA, the IRA could have passed the motion without any problems, obviouly senior SF members hold significant IRA posts which they were reluctant to leave.

So there is enough evidence to assume the leadership of SF have important position is the IRA. Thats not enough to say that they have council positions, but if not council, the ionly other positions that should be active if the IRA are on ceasfire are executive positions or GHQ. For those not familiar with how the IRA works that means they either appoint the council or are appointed by it.

There is enough to suggest Senior SF members are senior IRA members, Using hypothesis testing the onus is actually on you Irish1 to disprove this (I know this is the opposite to the courts system but decision making process used in science and business and is far more accurate but less fair).

However Sand is completely wrong when he claimed (looking for the post....., cant find it so correct me if Im wrong) the majority of shinners are provos. At last count there were no more than 600 members of the PIRA, hardly enough to elect as many representatives as SF have.

So while the IRA may be heavily influenced by SF, I do not believe SF to be at the mercy of the IRA (any more).

Victor

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

What rank did Admas have in the IRA?

What ranks are their in the IRA, above Volunteer and below General?

Stabshauptmann

Officer Commanding, Brigade staff member, Adjunct Commander, Brigade Commander, Company Quatermaster, *cant remember the intelligence ones*, GHQ staff, members of the ecexutive, members of the army council, Quatermaster General, Northern Command, Southern Command


Possibly alot more

Or are you just being pedantic?

Sand

Seriously sand come back when you have some real evidence, all you are going on is the past. We all know many members of Sinn Fein have a dark past but they have moved on and are now part of a party that is supported by the majority of Nationalists in their search for peace.

What evidence do you have that they have moved on? You accept that most of the SF leadership have a "dark past" - you have little choice afterall - but what evidence do you have that they moved on? Wheres Gerry's discharge papers from the IRA? Oh thats right, youve no evidence whatsoever that they moved on.
Using your biased rules of belief Im sure Gerrys word *alone* is good enough for you, but objectively its clear Gerry was in a senior IRA position *long* before he rose to power in SF. And its not clear at all that he decided to remove himself from the IRA when he moved to control SF. So, given the degree of control he has over the IRA is it safer to assume he has risen to the highest levels of command of the IRA? Or that hes just good mates with the boyos? For the second to be an option youd have to prove he left the organisation he negotiated for.
I can understand if youre in denial, but dont expect me to humour you. Theres only one conclusion you can draw from the available information. Adams and McGuiness are on the Army Council, and the Army Council directs the strategy of the provo movement.

fact four what do you think the chances of adams winning a libel case what barrister would take it
has his reputation been damaged by the article for example probably not I mean do you thin k any less of him than you did before in fact a claim like that could actually have people have a higher regard for him in certain circles

If the paper cant prove to the courts satisfaction that he, McGuiness and the others named are on the Army Council then Id rate his chances as quite good, wouldnt you?

And seeing as his peers include MPs, TDs, MLAs and so on I reckon he does have a good case for being negatively affected. Look how he was treated in the US. As if he was the leader of a gang of scumbag terrorists :eek:

Of course, the papers can prove it which is why Adams doesnt dare defend himself. He'd lose.

And lets face it, if hes willing to disband the IRA for the votes of middle Ireland why wont he face down his accusers in a court of law and settle once and for all that hes not on the Army Council or a member of the IRA? That would remove the taint of the IRA accusations for middle Ireland. Why not do it? You obviously believe hed win.

Come back to me when you have some real proof that proves Adams and McGuinness are currently members of the IRA Army Council.

And this is the 4th time youve not been able to counter a *single* thing on that info. "lalalalala Im not listening" repeated ad nauseum.

However Sand is completely wrong when he claimed (looking for the post....., cant find it so correct me if Im wrong) the majority of shinners are provos. At last count there were no more than 600 members of the PIRA, hardly enough to elect as many representatives as SF have.

I dont think Id claim the majority are provos as in the sense official IRA members- the majority of the leadership certainly are, and I wouldnt draw much distinction between supporting SF & the IRA as its clear to me that theyre one and same organisation with a single leadership. SF might be the outer circle, with the IRA the true power behind the throne. Certainly, the provos come from a strain of republicanism that long ago rejected the concept that they were answerable to the Dail, elected representives, or indeed anyone but themselves and their army council. The idea that they would take orders or direction from SF would be novel - the idea that SF is their tool is much more likely.

Villain

Sand what is there to counter??? You have not provided one shred of evidence that Adams and McGuinness currently sit on the Army Council!!

All you have to go on is storys from over 30 years ago, seriously Sand open your eyes.

Your the one making the claims here sand, so find some evidence to prove those claims.

I'm listening I'm just waiting for evidence.

Squaletto

Hi Irish, I have been watching with interest your debate with Sand. It has been very amusing but I think you could be expecting too much from Sand regarding showing evidence that Gerry and all the rest are on the army council. Sand will go on and on and on and on and on about what he thinks is right. Stubborn is an adjective which springs to mind. I blame the media and the unionist biased newspapers eg The Irish Independent and all the other British run papers for Sand's stance but then I could be wrong. Having said that though it would be helpful to us all if Sand could muster up the proof he claims to have as it would end this thred once and for all!!

Ciao.

Stabshauptmann

irish1 wrote:

Sand what is there to counter??? You have not provided one shred of evidence that Adams and McGuinness currently sit on the Army Council!!

All you have to go on is storys from over 30 years ago, seriously Sand open your eyes.

Your the one making the claims here sand, so find some evidence to prove those claims.

I'm listening I'm just waiting for evidence.

I realise your beef is with sand, but Id be interested in your view on my post too if you have the time.
Thanks.

Sleepy

What are you really waiting for? An Phoblacht to publish an article stating that the SF leadership are on/control the Army council? :rolleyes:

Villain

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I realise your beef is with sand, but Id be interested in your view on my post too if you have the time.
Thanks.

Well all you have offered is an opinion, no evidence, I accept that opinion and respect it, but I don't believe it is up to me to disprove sand's claim as he is the one making the claim.

Sleepy wrote:

What are you really waiting for? An Phoblacht to publish an article stating that the SF leadership are on/control the Army council?

I'm waiting for Sand to prove his claims, Sleepy.

Stabshauptmann

Actually what Ive said or at least meant to say (rereads post...) is that senior SF members doubled as senior IRA members, and I listed the possible positions they might hold, as recently as the late 90's.

Usings hypothesis testing, the method used in business and science (though not in legal issues) It is not upon Sand to prove they still hold these positions but for you to prove they dont.
This isnt a court of law, but if you want Sand to stop saying they are on the army council perhaps you should tell us why and when you believe they gave up whatever senior positions they held.

Not an unreasonable request

Villain

But what are you using for your information Kaptain Redeye??

I have an opinion which I have formed based on the facts available to me and I have seen no factual evidence to support Sand's claim that Adams and McGuinness sit on the IRA Army Council. He is making the accusation so I believe he should be asked to prove it.

Not an unreasonable request

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

I have seen no factual evidence to support Sand's claim that Adams and McGuinness sit on the IRA Army Council.

But if we change the word sit to sat in that sentence, do you accept or not that there is credible evidence to suggest that at some point in the past they held senior positions?

The use of the word suggest is deliberate here. I'm not suggesting that its an ascertained fact, but that there does exist evidence of a credible nature which supports the notion.

jc

Sand

Lets recap....

Irish1 rejects that Adams and McGuinness are on the Army Council. He belives this so absolutely that hes taken to using the report bad post function to try and censor posts that assert otherwise.

But

1) He accepts that they have a "dark past" - this is probably a guarded admission that he accepts they, at the very least, *were* senior IRA men - men senior enough to negotiate on behalf of the IRA as far back as 1972. He certainly hasnt countered a single bit of evidence that backs up this assertion.

2) He claims that this is in the past, that they have left this behind. However he offers no evidence whatsoever for this belief. There is certainly no evidence that Adams and McGuinness have *lost* power in the intervening years. Theyre currently openly discussing decommissioning and disbandment as bargaining leverage!

3) He offers no logical explanation why Adams and McGuinness are willing to offer disbandment of the IRA to reassure Middle Ireland voters, but are unwilling to sue to protect their character - and by extension the character of their party - from open naming as members of the IRA Army Council in established newspapers.

Like I said Irish1, if you're in denial of the obvious conclusion to be drawn thats your problem. Dont expect me to humour you no matter how many times you use the report bad post button.

What are you really waiting for? An Phoblacht to publish an article stating that the SF leadership are on/control the Army council?

I doubt that would be enough for him.

Stabshauptmann

I could have swore I wrote a reply to this, if a post of mine has been deleted Ive recieved no pm or warning from anyone, so Im gonna presume I never pressed submit and type one again......

Irish1, you refuse to counter any points made by any posters in this thread. You say the points arent good enough.
The criminal records stated above are fact.
Two IRA splits and what they were over are well known facts.

Senior SF members once help senior IRA positions as demonstrated at many negotiations, thus FACT!
Up till recently these senior SF ppl still held senior IRA positions, a logical dedution from facts.
That conclusion is valid unless you can prove a change in the status quo. You claim you dont have to, if Sand says otherwise he should prove it. Sand is accepting the status quo, you are not, the onus is on you not him.

Do you dispute any of the above facts, if so which.
Why do you believe this change came about and more importantly when. So far you have offered no proof, you say you have facts available to you, share them. I'll settle for logic and reasoning though, backed up of course by something palpable.

Cork

Does Adams still believe that he was never a member of the IRA?

I don't think many believe him only the gullable.

The membership of the IRA army council has been named by many sources in our media and our government.

TDs have named people outside Dail Privilidge.

They are sure of their ground.

Villain

bonkey wrote:

But if we change the word sit to sat in that sentence, do you accept or not that there is credible evidence to suggest that at some point in the past they held senior positions?

The use of the word suggest is deliberate here. I'm not suggesting that its an ascertained fact, but that there does exist evidence of a credible nature which supports the notion.

jc

I would certainly accept that in the past Adams and McGuinness probably held positions in the IRA, how senior I'm not sure.

Sand wrote:

Lets recap....

Irish1 rejects that Adams and McGuinness are on the Army Council. He belives this so absolutely that hes taken to using the report bad post function to try and censor posts that assert otherwise.

I have reported posts where you have made statements which IMO were presented as facts without providing any proof.

Sand wrote:

1) He accepts that they have a "dark past" - this is probably a guarded admission that he accepts they, at the very least, *were* senior IRA men - men senior enough to negotiate on behalf of the IRA as far back as 1972. He certainly hasnt countered a single bit of evidence that backs up this assertion.

I accept that in the past these men were probably members of the IRA, I don't believe I have ever said otherwise.

Sand wrote:

2) He claims that this is in the past, that they have left this behind. However he offers no evidence whatsoever for this belief. There is certainly no evidence that Adams and McGuinness have *lost* power in the intervening years. Theyre currently openly discussing decommissioning and disbandment as bargaining leverage!

I have seen no evidence that proves Adams and McGuinness are currently members of the IRA Army Council. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are part of the Sinn Fein leadership which always had and continues to have links with the IRA, I have never disputed that but I don't accept that means they control the IRA.

Sand wrote:

3) He offers no logical explanation why Adams and McGuinness are willing to offer disbandment of the IRA to reassure Middle Ireland voters, but are unwilling to sue to protect their character - and by extension the character of their party - from open naming as members of the IRA Army Council in established newspapers.

Thats simple Sand they want peace and want to achieve their aims through democratic means. The reason they have not sued is because of the legal advice they have, the libel laws don't mean what the media prints has to be true.

Sand wrote:

Like I said Irish1, if you're in denial of the obvious conclusion to be drawn thats your problem. Dont expect me to humour you no matter how many times you use the report bad post button.

All I have asked for is real evidence to prove your accusations, it's not my fault you can't produce any.

Sand wrote:

I doubt that would be enough for him.

Well present some real evidence and you will find out

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Irish1, you refuse to counter any points made by any posters in this thread. You say the points arent good enough.
The criminal records stated above are fact.
Two IRA splits and what they were over are well known facts.

Yes but those facts are not what I am disputing, those facts don't prove Adams and McGuinness are currently on the IRA Army Council, that is what I am disputing.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Senior SF members once help senior IRA positions as demonstrated at many negotiations, thus FACT!
Up till recently these senior SF ppl still held senior IRA positions, a logical dedution from facts.
That conclusion is valid unless you can prove a change in the status quo. You claim you dont have to, if Sand says otherwise he should prove it. Sand is accepting the status quo, you are not, the onus is on you not him.

Do you dispute any of the above facts, if so which.
Why do you believe this change came about and more importantly when. So far you have offered no proof, you say you have facts available to you, share them. I'll settle for logic and reasoning though, backed up of course by something palpable.

I dispute that up until recently senior SF ppl still held IRA positions, I have seen evidence to prove that.

When did I say I have facts, a link to the post will suffice, I am looking for the facts to prove Sand's argument

Cork wrote:

TDs have named people outside Dail Privilidge.

They are sure of their ground.

But your buddy the Taoiseach isn't

Cork

irish1 wrote:

But your buddy the Taoiseach isn't

He was pretty sure that some senior shinners had prior knowledge of the NI bank raid.

He made that pretty clear to Adams.

I find it amazing that SF have yet to acknowledge the full extent of that partys relationship with the IRA.

Adams still refuses to acknowledge he was ever a member of the IRA.

Stabshauptmann

irish1 wrote:

I would certainly accept that in the past Adams and McGuinness probably held positions in the IRA, how senior I'm not sure.

Did they attend negotiations on behalf of the IRA. has McGuinness not admitted being OC of Derry at one stge.

I accept that in the past these men were probably members of the IRA, I don't believe I have ever said otherwise.

Dont twist things.

I have seen no evidence that proves Adams and McGuinness are currently members of the IRA Army Council.

I generally feel ppl that waste my time are muppets. If you want to continue this thread you'll need ppl to talk to, show some respect and dont act as if Sand and I are idiots. Its been shown they were senior members, show us why you think they lost/gave up those positions. Dont twist things.

Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are part of the Sinn Fein leadership which always had and continues to have links with the IRA, I have never disputed that but I don't accept that means they control the IRA.

SF disputes those links. On occasion. Then reaffirms them. Inconsistancy is one of my pet peevs.

Thats simple Sand they want peace and want to achieve their aims through democratic means.

By that logic why not promise a british withdrawal and roads made of gold.

The reason they have not sued is because of the legal advice they have, the libel laws don't mean what the media prints has to be true.

Agreed. That AND it would be a political mistake.

All I have asked for is real evidence to prove your accusations

Not true. You want an appology from Sand or some sort of admission. Anything you can herald as a victoy.

it's not my fault you can't produce any.

Who else to you blame for your stubburness. You twist arguements and ignore others. You dont want to see the possibility that you are wrong.

Well present some real evidence and you will find out

That Adams was released from internment to negotiate on behalf of the IRA in 1972. Fact. It proves he held a senior IRA position. Do you accept it. Dont dare say "That doesnt prove he currently blah blah blah" The question is simple and been asked repeatedly. Did SF leadership members hold senior IRA positions?

Yes but those facts are not what I am disputing, those facts don't prove Adams and McGuinness are currently on the IRA Army Council, that is what I am disputing.

No, your not disputing your denying. If you were disputing you'd be offering arguements to the contrary.

Are you disputing A) That the IRA split, B)What it split over or C)That because SF members didnt want to resign from Senior IRA positions, that doesnt mean those SF members are Senior members of SF?
If they werent senior SF members then they could easily resign from SF and keep there IRA positions.
Nobody in either SF or the IRA wanted a split so if it could have been easily avoided it would have been.

I dispute that up until recently senior SF ppl still held IRA positions, I have seen evidence to prove that.

What is that evidence?

When did I say I have facts, a link to the post will suffice, I am looking for the facts to prove Sand's argument

Look up two lines and also today at 15:34

But your buddy the Taoiseach isn't

While I think Bertie wouldnt say anything if he did know, your right to use him as a defence, because thats exactly why he said it.

Villain

Cork wrote:

He was pretty sure that some senior shinners had prior knowledge of the NI bank raid.

He made that pretty clear to Adams.

Yep and when asked to stand that claim up he couldn't. Sounds familar doesn't it

Squaletto

irish1 wrote:

Yep and when asked to stand that claim up he couldn't. Sounds familar doesn't it

Certainly does!!!

By the way mods I thought calling other posters childish names was against the rules. Maybe being called a muppet doesn't fall into that category, can you help me out with that one?

Cheers me dears!

Villain

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Did they attend negotiations on behalf of the IRA. has McGuinness not admitted being OC of Derry at one stge.

I believe both to be true.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Dont twist things.

How have I?

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I generally feel ppl that waste my time are muppets. If you want to continue this thread you'll need ppl to talk to, show some respect and dont act as if Sand and I are idiots. Its been shown they were senior members, show us why you think they lost/gave up those positions. Dont twist things.

Easy now, I have not insulted anyone, I have said on many occasions I respects Sand's opinion. I believe they are now members of Sinn Fein only, I don't believe the would have spent so much time on a peace process if they were leaders of the IRA, I also don't believe Tony Blair would invite the leaders of the IRA to No. 10 in public. I believe Adams and McGuinness have devoted themselves to peace and have not been members of the IRA for a very long time, this is what the men state and I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

SF disputes those links. On occasion. Then reaffirms them. Inconsistancy is one of my pet peevs.

Show me where SF has disputed having links with the IRA??

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

By that logic why not promise a british withdrawal and roads made of gold.

Well I believe they want to deliver peace if you believe otherwise thats your right.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Agreed. That AND it would be a political mistake.

Only if they lost

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Not true. You want an appology from Sand or some sort of admission. Anything you can herald as a victoy.

Nope I just want him to prove his accusation, I'm around long enough to know that any sort of admission would be asking too much.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Who else to you blame for your stubburness. You twist arguements and ignore others. You dont want to see the possibility that you are wrong.

I don't twist arguments, I stand firm to my beliefs until I see some facts that prove otherwise. There is a possibility that I am wrong and I will be the first to hold my hands up and admit it if I see facts that prove my beliefs to be wrong.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

That Adams was released from internment to negotiate on behalf of the IRA in 1972. Fact. It proves he held a senior IRA position. Do you accept it. Dont dare say "That doesnt prove he currently blah blah blah" The question is simple and been asked repeatedly. Did SF leadership members hold senior IRA positions?

That is a strong possibilty, but right now I'm not interested in what happened 30 years ago.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

No, your not disputing your denying. If you were disputing you'd be offering arguements to the contrary.

Are you disputing A) That the IRA split, B)What it split over or C)That because SF members didnt want to resign from Senior IRA positions, that doesnt mean those SF members are Senior members of SF?
If they werent senior SF members then they could easily resign from SF and keep there IRA positions.
Nobody in either SF or the IRA wanted a split so if it could have been easily avoided it would have been.

I'm not disputing they split, I don't know why exactly they split,I also don't know who held what positions.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

What is that evidence?

Apologies that was a typo I meant " I have not seen any evidence to prove that"

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Look up two lines and also today at 15:34

My post at 15:34 stated

I have an opinion which I have formed based on the facts available to me and I have seen no factual evidence to support Sand's claim that Adams and McGuinness sit on the IRA Army Council.

by which I meant that I know for a fact that Adams and McGuinness have denied that they are currently members of the IRA Army council and I have seen no facts to prove otherwise, and when they called on the Minister for Justice to have them arrested (by giving evidence to the Gardai that proves they are members of an illegal ornagisation) nothing happened.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

While I think Bertie wouldnt say anything if he did know, your right to use him as a defence, because thats exactly why he said it.

Well I can only go on what he said.

Sand

I believe they are now members of Sinn Fein only, I don't believe the would have spent so much time on a peace process if they were leaders of the IRA, I also don't believe Tony Blair would invite the leaders of the IRA to No. 10 in public. I believe Adams and McGuinness have devoted themselves to peace and have not been members of the IRA for a very long time, this is what the men state and I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise.

So its a matter of faith for you, not evidence?

Why do you think that holding an IRA rank and engaging with the peace proccess is mutually exsclusive? Are you saying you dont believe the IRA is engaged with the peace process? And believe me, the only reason Blair invited Adams and Co to Downing Street was because he believed they were in control of the IRA. Adams and SF/IRA have consistently dangled the carrot of a comprehensive peace settlement before the democratic governments of these islands in an effort to force the complete destruction of law, order and legitimate government in Northern Ireland and more recently in the Republic.

Show me where SF has disputed having links with the IRA??

I think this is what Kaptain means by treating people like idiots. Wasnt it not so long ago that Adams angrily ( as always ) announced that SF wasnt there to interpret IRA statements and that if they wanted to know what the IRA thought that they should ask the IRA? Or did you miss that? Did you miss the tiresome threads where you again expected everyone to indulge you in your belief that SF/IRA werent one and the same?

I don't twist arguments, I stand firm to my beliefs until I see some facts that prove otherwise. There is a possibility that I am wrong and I will be the first to hold my hands up and admit it if I see facts that prove me beliefs to be wrong.

That is a strong possibilty, but right now I'm not interested in what happened 30 years ago.

You dont see how the two statements are connected? The evidence supports the view that Adams and Co were senior IRA in the 70s, there is no evidence to suggest they left or lost influence, and yet despite this you believe as an article of faith that they have? You have seen no facts- none youve shared anyway - to show your beliefs to be correct!

Only if they lost

Which they would. They face the option of losing face to the unchallenged assertions they are IRA Army Council members, or confirming those assertions by challenging them and inevitably losing. A tough political problem for them, but it only supports the case that they are on the Army Council when they cant challenge it to the satisfaction of a court.

Villain

Sand wrote:

So its a matter of faith for you, not evidence?

Why do you think that holding an IRA rank and engaging with the peace proccess is mutually exsclusive? Are you saying you dont believe the IRA is engaged with the peace process? And believe me, the only reason Blair invited Adams and Co to Downing Street was because he believed they were in control of the IRA. Adams and SF/IRA have consistently dangled the carrot of a comprehensive peace settlement before the democratic governments of these islands in an effort to force the complete destruction of law, order and legitimate government in Northern Ireland and more recently in the Republic.

As I have said already I have formed an opinion based on what I know. I believe Adams and McGuinness are solely members of Sinn Fein and are trying to bring an end to the IRA in order to progress the peace process through democratic means. I don't beleive the IRA has done enough for the peace process.

Sand wrote:

I think this is what Kaptain means by treating people like idiots. Wasnt it not so long ago that Adams angrily ( as always ) announced that SF wasnt there to interpret IRA statements and that if they wanted to know what the IRA thought that they should ask the IRA? Or did you miss that? Did you miss the tiresome threads where you again expected everyone to indulge you in your belief that SF/IRA werent one and the same?

Being the same and having links are two very different things, Adams and Sinn Fein have links with the IRA how else would they be able to meet them to ask them questions etc, I have never denied Sinn Fein have links with the IRA I am 100% certain that has always being my position. Adams said that the government should ask the IRA what their statements mean, did he say that Sinn Fein and the IRA had severed all links??? Now you's treating people like an idiot?

Sand wrote:

You dont see how the two statements are connected? The evidence supports the view that Adams and Co were senior IRA in the 70s, there is no evidence to suggest they left or lost influence, and yet despite this you believe as an article of faith that they have? You have seen no facts- none youve shared anyway - to show your beliefs to be correct!

I have been watching the peace process for many years now and I believe Adams and McGuinness that they are now only members of Sinn Fein. A lot has changed in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years, a lot of people have given up using force and now use politics.

Sand wrote:

Which they would. They face the option of losing face to the unchallenged assertions they are IRA Army Council members, or confirming those assertions by challenging them and inevitably losing. A tough political problem for them, but it only supports the case that they are on the Army Council when they cant challenge it to the satisfaction of a court.

Well they have taken legal and accepted that, if they are members of the IRA Army Council and it can be proven they are in breach of teh law and should be arrested.

Sand, you have still failed to provide evidence to prove your accusation.

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

I would certainly accept that in the past Adams and McGuinness probably held positions in the IRA, how senior I'm not sure.

Good good. Thats what I wanted to hear.

those facts don't prove Adams and McGuinness are currently on the IRA Army Council, that is what I am disputing.

Ahhh...but Irish1....you're assuming thats what I was lining you up for...which it wasn't

We now all agree that we're coming from a position where there is proof that at some time in the past they were in the IRA (possibly on the council, but you disagree, so lets just say they were members of the IRA).

So, in the absence of proof that they have abandoned those ways, your own logic requires you to insist that they still hold those positions.

Remember - if they were members and you can't provide proof that they have changed their status, then either they are still members, or you are applying a dual standard regarding the burden of proof....where Sand must prove his statements, but you can just decide what you want to be valid based on...well...little more than convenience and ideology (from what I can see).

I dispute that up until recently senior SF ppl still held IRA positions, I have seen evidence to prove that.

You have seen evidence, but you're not willing to provide it? Isn't this a somewhat hypocritical position to be taking having insisted time after time after time that until Sand produces evidence, he's simply talking to the fairies?

So....can you and will you supply proof that Adams etc. have abandoned the IRA positions that you agree they most probably held?

Or will you simply continue to maintain that its perfectly acceptable for you to make leaps of faith like this, changing people's status from a previously known one because it suits you, but for anyone else its a travesty to make such unfounded and baseless assumptions?

jc

Villain

Busy at the moment Bonkey I'll try and get back to that post later, but remember I am not accusing anyone of anything, I am taking the word of both men and I have seen no evidence to prove the accusations. It would be like me accusing you of being a member of the UVF surely it would be up to me to prove that not you to disprove it?

Kaptain Redeye

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I generally feel ppl that waste my time are muppets. If you want to continue this thread you'll need ppl to talk to, show some respect and dont act as if Sand and I are idiots. Its been shown they were senior members, show us why you think they lost/gave up those positions. Dont twist things.

If you are asking people to show you respect, the least you could do is do the same back.
Thin ice there Kaptain Redeye,you know what will happen if that ice snaps.

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

It would be like me accusing you of being a member of the UVF surely it would be up to me to prove that not you to disprove it?

No..it would be like you agreeing that there is evidence to suggest that I was a member of the UVF in my teenage years, and then deciding that I'm no longer a member because, well, I say I amn't.

Once you accept I was a member (which you have done with Adams, McGuinness etc.) then surely the onus is to provide proof that the situation has changed, not to provide proof to show that the situation has remained unchanged.

Otherwise, the demands for proof are simply convenient misdirection, as you're not applying them consistently.

jc