IRA man released under the GFA involved in Cork Kidnap and attempted robbery

Rock Climber

Just heard this on the six one news.
Two of the guys have republican links.
They held a 6 months pregnant woman hostage.
One of the guys arrested was released under the GFA early release programme.

lovely fuckin lovely...

Who do Sinn Féin think they are kidding when they bring the likes of these IRA guys to their Árd fheis and pretend they are not criminals... ?

Background

Larianne

It's a disgrace!! :mad:

Nuttzz

its not surprising...

mike65

Ah don't worry they were only freelancing....(I saw nothin')

Mike.

Larianne

To do that to anyone is terrible but to a family where the wife is pregnant and their 4 kids are all under the age of 6yrs.

hawkmoon269

Reading stories like this, I'm starting to think the peace process is largely a sham to appease terrorists.

Can't wait for the first SF supporter to come on spouting gibberish about how it's all a securocrat plot.

ReefBreak

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Reading stories like this, I'm starting to think the peace process is largely a sham to appease terrorists.

You're only thinking this now?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

damien

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Because there are only so many ways on a weekly basis that they can say "Surprise ! The IRA are criminals ! " before they and the people get sick of it ?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

damien

What it could be is that they know the full story but can only publish some details now. The full story might come out in a short while. I've seen this happen to other non-event type news stories before.

Villain

AFAIK the IRA had cut it's connection with the men that were involved. Being reported on this mornings news that they had cut connections with 2 of them.

So bascially what you have here are former republicans who have turned into criminals bloody nasty ones at that.

So rock climber I think you might want to check the facts as I believe (could be wrong) that these are former IRA men, so maybe a thread title stating "Former IRA man released under the GFA.... etc"

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

So rock climber I think you might want to check the facts as I believe (could be wrong) that these are former IRA men, so maybe a thread title stating "Former IRA man released under the GFA.... etc"

Certainly I'll do that when I see Gerry Adams condemning this IRA Good friday released mans actions for besmirching the good name of republicanism.
Do you think I'll be waiting long?

Villain

I doubt it, I'd imagine Adams would condemn such a violent act of criminality.

My point is that your thread is misleading.

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

I doubt it, I'd imagine Adams would condemn such a violent act of criminality.

I'd imagine he's pretty busy at the moment,but I'll believe it when I see it.

My point is that your thread is misleading.

Not at all. He was released under the GFA as an IRA prisoner,have the IRA been campaigning since they "disowned" him to get him back in prison?
They seem to be very zealous when they change their minds the other way on who they claim should or shouldnt be in prison.
Anyway,very few people down here take the word of the IRA,they can say what they like.
Adams trusts them though :rolleyes: Do you?

Villain

I just wrote a reply but most of it was off topic so I deleted it, my point is simple IMO your thread is misleading it should say a former IRA man.

Now I really couldn't be bothered gatting into another random discussion on Sinn Fein and the IRA. The people of Northern of Ireland will vote tomorrow and they will tell us who they want to represent them.

This act was a criminal act carried out by criminal's who in the past have been members of the IRA.

A Dub in Glasgo

Not quite as clear cut as the Rock claims... Nothing new there

Irish Indo wrote:

He was kicked out of the Provisional IRA more than two years ago after a terrorist court martial into the activities of members who were siphoning off some of the proceeds of crimes.

The gang leader was the victim of a punishment shooting and ejected from the Provisional movement along with the then commanding officer of the IRA's Dublin brigade. The suspect made several attempts to be re-instated but was refused and set up his own crime gang in the Dundalk area.

His activities meant he was targeted by the Criminal Assets Bureau. He also escaped from custody in the North but was subsequently arrested by gardai and served a 10-year jail term in Portlaoise. He was then granted a special dispensation by Queen Elizabeth to return to the North without fear of prosecution.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1388981&issue_id=12419

Zombrex

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I think you are seeing a bias where there clearly isn't one ...

If you were a hippy you would be screaming that the death of Bob Hunter (founder of Greenpeace) has been moved down to the bottom because western media is run by the corporations who hate greenpeace... if you are an anti-war person you would be screaming that the US announcment of nuclear weapons isn't the headline because the government is pressuring RTE to follow the offical line ... if you are pro-Bush you would be screaming that the news from Iraqi is to high compared to the nuclear announcment because RTE is anti-war .. etc etc etc

Everyone has a personal (bias) opinion of what news is important and what news isn't important, based on there own interests. To you the report Gardi have arrested (only arrested, it isn't the original kidnapping report) a man in connection to a kidnapping and other on going details about the case is more important to you than crisis at one of the main teacher training colleges. To others that is far more important. It is also the first report of the resignation, where as the kidnap story had already broken and this was a follow up.

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

Now I really couldn't be bothered gatting into another random discussion on Sinn Fein and the IRA. The people of Northern of Ireland will vote tomorrow and they will tell us who they want to represent them.

an awkward question for you Irish1 isnt it, I'LL repeat it.
The IRA campaign to have those that they reclaim out under the GFA, but they do nothing when they disown those already out...

This act was a criminal act carried out by criminal's who in the past have been members of the IRA.

I'll repeat the other awkward question, do you trust the IRA's word on this?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Not quite as clear cut as the Rock claims... Nothing new there

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1388981&issue_id=12419

LoL Dub, is that the Indo you are quoting there...

Now Irish 1 do you trust the IRA's word on this?

A Dub in Glasgo

Rock Climber wrote:

LoL Dub, is that the Indo you are quoting there...

Yep and if they can even state this, it is even more obvious that he was an ex- IRA man rather than an IRA man as claimed in your thread

Zombrex

I think if someone on release from the GFA is convicted of a future crime they should have to serve both the time for that crime and the time for the terrorist crime they committed .. that might be the way it works now, but if it isn't it should be

Mighty_Mouse

Whats the point here rockclimber?

Are you arguing:
a) prisoners shouldnt be released under GFA?
b) It fair enough to release prisoners but if they are involved in further criminal activity then throw the book at them.

I agree with b) by the way. So does every republican I know.

This was not an IRA act. I dont see the problem

Villain

Thats totally off topic Rock Climber, if you want me to answer those questions start a new thread, but I think most people know my position on the IRA.

Rock Climber

It's not off topic Irish1.
Clearly you are taking the word of the IRA on this mans position.
So I'm asking do you trust the IRA?

It's interesting that you wont answer the question.

Mighty_mouse yup it's b , have the IRA put the same input into having this guys lose his GFA entitlements because they threw him out(thats if we are to believe them) as they did to have the mccabe killers included?

Otherwise they are disingenous.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Yep and if they can even state this, it is even more obvious that he was an ex- IRA man rather than an IRA man as claimed in your thread

This means now that you are willing to take the INDO as gospel when it suits you that, I can ignore all claims of bias when I quote it in future?


I shall bookmark this for reference so

Villain

It's not on topic, now I have no problem answering it in the right thread or pm, that is my last post on this matter in this thread

Zombrex

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Whats the point here rockclimber?

Are you arguing:
a) prisoners shouldnt be released under GFA?
b) It fair enough to release prisoners but if they are involved in further criminal activity then throw the book at them.

I agree with b) by the way. So does every republican I know.

This was not an IRA act. I dont see the problem

I think the point is that these people were supposed to be release because they weren't criminals, there were "freedom fighters" or "political prisioners", and now a lot of them have wound up in criminal attivities which kinda re-affirms the view that a lot of Irish people (myself included) had that the IRA was, and still is, made up of nothing more than a group of thugs and criminals that do not, and have never, deserved the protections that real soldiers and a real army deserves.

But the GFA has been signed, not much we can do about it now. Except throw the book at this guy and be a lot more careful and less trusting when dealing with the Irish Republican Army in the future.

Irish1,I don't see the "off topicness" here.
You have stated that the IRA have expelled the guy and you are simply being asked do you trust their word on this?
Thats a relevant and on topic question.

A Dub in Glasgo

Well then it is patently obvious that people will fall into 2 camps

1. People who will never trust the IRA therefore they will not believe that the subject of this thread is an ex-IRA man (even without offering any kind of link or evidence that he is in the IRA). It is what they want to believe rather than any possibility that the truth is somewhat different.

2. In the absence of other evidence, people will trust the IRA word on this

RC makes it plain that he is in camp 1 and then asks of everyone in camp 2 for their opinion on other actions of the IRA. I have been pulled up for off topicness for a lot less than that.

bonkey

Can someone explain to me how this man was released under the GFA?

If one were to believe the Republican-supporting posts here, the 'RA kicked this guy out some time ago and (presumably) want nothing more to do with him. However, what they don't appear to have done is actually made this issue clear to the authorities that they are supposedly negotiating with.

How did the Irish government mistakenly believe that this man was eligible for early release under the GFA? More importantly - why did no-one on the Republican side speak up against this?

I honestly don't get it. Some days, I tend to think that Republicans are being stitched up, and that someone is deliberately engineering situations to make them look bad. On the other hand, when I look at it a day later, the only conclusion I can come to is that if the Republicans are being stitched up, its being made possible by what what I can only describe as the most inept and incapable P.R. / negotiating / political teams imaginable.

It doesn't add up...and this seems to me to be the real underlying issue. The stuff thats going on doesn't make sense, regardless of whether or not you listen to and believe the Republican explanations/excuses.

This, for me, is ultimately where the growing issue with SF, the IRA, and the entire peace process is coming from. The explanations offered don't make sense. So either we're being asked to entrust the future of our isle to people who can't make sense, or we're being asked to entrust it to liars or deceivers.

So maybe someone can offer me a third option? Maybe someone can offer a sensible way to interpret how no Republican party objected to being linked to this mans criminal activity through his early release, nor objected to him being released in their name. Are we to believe, for example, that they are not actually privy to the decisions as to who will and will not be released, and that its a surprise to them when someone finds themself on the free side of the fence?

Explain it to me.

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

Rock Climber wrote:

This means now that you are willing to take the INDO as gospel when it suits you that, I can ignore all claims of bias when I quote it in future?


I shall bookmark this for reference so

Getting ahead of yourself there. I was pointing out that even the Irish Independent (that fervent anti-Sinn Fein and IRA publication) has called it differebt to you ie He is an ex member of the IRA who was expelled years ago. Yet you believe that he is an IRA member but offer nothing to back it up except a bout of 'Whataboutry'.

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Getting ahead of yourself there. I was pointing out that even the Irish Independent (that fervent anti-Sinn Fein and IRA publication) has called it differebt to you

So when the Indo agrees with the Republican position, its accurate. When it disagrees with the Republican position, its lying. And its decision to gravitate between the two is - apparently - based on whether truth or fiction will do more damage?

This what you're saying?

jc

Mighty_Mouse

Mighty_mouse yup it's b , have the IRA put the same input into having this guys lose his GFA entitlements because they threw him out(thats if we are to believe them) as they did to have the mccabe killers included?

The McCabe incident was sanctioned at lower levels of the IRA, this wasnt.

bonkey

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

The McCabe incident was sanctioned at lower levels of the IRA, this wasnt.

That explains why he should have been excluded, which wasn't the question.

The question was whether or not the same effort was put into ensuring he was excluded as was put into trying to make sure the McCabe killers were inculded.

Or do the IRA only believe in the importance of releasing the right people, as opposed to keeping the "wrong" people incarcerated? Its ok to release people who shouldn't be let out, but wrong to keep in those who should be?

Paddyo

He was kicked out of the Provisional IRA more than two years ago after a terrorist court martial into the activities of members who were siphoning off some of the proceeds of crimes.

I think this statement says a lot - it wasnt because of the crimes he was expelled, it was because he was siphoning off some of the proceeds!!!

Paddyo

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

So when the Indo agrees with the Republican position, its accurate.

Mibbes Aye Mibbes Naw

When it disagrees with the Republican position, its lying.

Mibbes Aye Mibbes Naw

And its decision to gravitate between the two is - apparently - based on whether truth or fiction will do more damage?

It is whatever spin they wish to use

I would have expected the Indo to have a similar slant to what was posted by RC, the fact that they did not even go that far is what I am pointing out.

rubberduckey

Just to get some opinions on 'paddyo's' view that :

"it wasnt because of the crimes he was expelled, it was because he was siphoning off some of the proceeds"

Do the people in the B camp on this thread, agree that this is accurate??

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgow wrote:

the fact that they did not even go that far is what I am pointing out.

But the issue is that the expulsion is claimed to be a fact, and the only supporting reference is that the Indo was referenced to back it up.

This is what the crux of the matter is.

You're using the Indo as a source to validate a claim, and yet readily admit that on any given issue, the Indo may or may not tell the truth, depending on what spin is this week's flavour.

If the Indo is unreliable, you can't reasonably expect us to accept what it says as any sort of reference to back up your "fact". Or...if it can back up your fact, then why can't it back up others.

So either you're offering opinion (presented as fact) which the Indo happens to agree with, or you're implicitly suggesting that the Indo is an acceptable source for providing linkage etc. to back up claims of something as fact.
As a third option (and just for completeness cause I don't think you'll go for this one) it could be that you're applying double standards as to when and why one can use the Indo as a reference.

See the problem?

The easiest solution would seem to be that we could all agree that the choice of the Indo as a reference was ill chosen...and the skeptics can sit back and wait for one of the (sure-to-exist) more accetptable sources to be produced in the stead of the Indo link.

jc

Paddyo

rubberduckey wrote:

Just to get some opinions on 'paddyo's' view that :

"it wasnt because of the crimes he was expelled, it was because he was siphoning off some of the proceeds"

Do the people in the B camp on this thread, agree that this is accurate??

The above is not my view - it is what is in the quotation.

My view is that if people are using the piece from the Indo as fact, then it means that the IRA are involved in criminal activity.

By the way and please excuse my ignorance - what is the B camp?

Paddyo

uberwolf

Another source.

todays Irish Times on teh front page acknowledges that one of the men recently
"fell foul of the organisation' and "discplined". His brother is a senior figure in the dublin IRA. The third member of the gang has never been linked before.
The first has no details given about his current status other than that which has already been given, GFA release.

Senior officer believe it was unsanctioned move by a "Provo crew" done for their own benefit without sanction.

bonkey

Paddyo wrote:

I think this statement says a lot - it wasnt because of the crimes he was expelled, it was because he was siphoning off some of the proceeds!!!

It would make some of Irish1's statements on this thread look a bit damaging to his own support of republicanism, wouldn't it...

jc

ishmael whale

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0504/print/waterford

daveirl wrote:

My logic says it's a Dublin bias in the media.

You’re so right, the fact that RTE’s website is currently leading with the closure of the Waterford Glass plant in Dungarvan is clear evidence of a Dublin bias.

On the substantive issue, from what we can gather from media reports these people are ‘dissident’ republicans, rather than current members. So the case is really just illustrative of the kind of lovely people who find membership of a paramilitary organisation an attractive proposition.

However, Paddyo’s quote taken from the Indo, suggesting they were thrown out because they dipped their hand in a flow of IRA crime-related money, is interesting. After all, what kind of offence gets you thrown out of the IRA? As we know from the McCartney case, involvement in a crime doesn’t count unless a fantastic amount of political pressure is applied.

bonkey

ishmael whale wrote:

After all, what kind of offence gets you thrown out of the IRA? As we know from the McCartney case, involvement in a crime doesn’t count unless a fantastic amount of political pressure is applied.

At a guess - stealing from the IRA will get you kicked out (or maybe killed). Stealing for the IRA, or from others won't.

jc

uberwolf

bonkey wrote:

It would make some of Irish1's statements on this thread look a bit damaging to his own support of republicanism, wouldn't it...

jc

on topic please.

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

But the issue is that the expulsion is claimed to be a fact, and the only supporting reference is that the Indo was referenced to back it up.

This is what the crux of the matter is.

It was the only one I could see, there may be more. I do not have subscriptions to other newspapers and the Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman have failed to mention the story. If it was reported in AP/RN, I would have quoted it from AP/RN.

You're using the Indo as a source to validate a claim, and yet readily admit that on any given issue, the Indo may or may not tell the truth, depending on what spin is this week's flavour.

I was using whatever was available to question the validity of the thread title. If the thread title has been proved to be correct, I will take stock at offering a different slant on things.

If the Indo is unreliable, you can't reasonably expect us to accept what it says as any sort of reference to back up your "fact". Or...if it can back up your fact, then why can't it back up others.

Each case taken on merits. I assume it cuts the other way as well

So either you're offering opinion (presented as fact) which the Indo happens to agree with, or you're implicitly suggesting that the Indo is an acceptable source for providing linkage etc. to back up claims of something as fact.

Aren't we all offering opinions rather than facts here?

As a third option (and just for completeness cause I don't think you'll go for this one) it could be that you're applying double standards as to when and why one can use the Indo as a reference.

I have previously stated that I will reference the Indo if I think it relevant.

See the problem?

I see an issue, not a problem

The easiest solution would seem to be that we could all agree that the choice of the Indo as a reference was ill chosen

Well, as I have said previously, I will reference to the Indo if I deem it is relevant. I do not have a sub to The Irish Times for example and I cannot get the Irish Times in Glasgow.

..and the skeptics can sit back and wait for one of the (sure-to-exist) more accetptable sources to be produced in the stead of the Indo link.

Who are the skeptics? Those skeptical of the original post thread title? or those skeptical of the validity that this person was expelled from the IRA?

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If the thread title has been proved to be correct,

Hang on - the only reason we had to believe it wasn't correct at the point that this discussion started was an article in the Indo suggesting that the IRA had claimed the men were kicked out. Nothing else.

So why does the title need to be proven correct?

Each case taken on merits. I assume it cuts the other way as well

From the references available to us, we can see that the only reason to believe these men aren't current members of hte IRA is that the Indo said in an article that the IRA made this claim.

For that to carry merit, without attributing said merit to the Indo's credibility (which you're not doing) is that you believe its true because you want to.

I have previously stated that I will reference the Indo if I think it relevant.

And it would now appear to be relevant because you want it to be. It was the only source casting doubt on the membership status, and you put faith in it.

So either "relevant" equates to "when I want it to be relevant", or you've access to other sources that you're not sharing.

I see an issue, not a problem

That, in a nutshell, is why there's a problem with the peace process. Each side see things of thei own making as issues, and those made by others as problems. So no-one needs to sort anything....simply insist that others do.

Who are the skeptics? Those skeptical of the original post thread title? or those skeptical of the validity that this person was expelled from the IRA?

Those skeptical of the argument that "they're not members cause the Indo says that the IRA said so, and ergo the title is wrong".

jc

<edit>
Crazy reasoning removed from end
</edit>

Cork

Senior SF members were said to have had prior knowledge of the NI bank raid.

The IRA has zero reason to exist other than being involved in rackets.

I think it is up to the authorities North and South to tackle organised crime whether the IRA or past members were behind it.

7 years after the GFA - the continued existance of the IRA and their army council is an insult to the Irish people.

Governments shold have not allowed their continued existance.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ishmael whale

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Which presumably means in the run of things that whatever significance the teacher college story was thought to have was ultimately deemed to be of less importance as the stories development. At any given moment in time some story is being given top billing, and its not unusual for a new story to take the top slot of a bit. I don't see what relevance location has in this.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

The inclusion of Dublin in this context seems to have more to do with your oversensitivity to location, than any editorial decisions by RTE. Yesterday also saw the launch of the Central Bank Quarterly Bulletin, which gave an account of how the Irish economy is doing. Do you deem that to be 'Dublin' news because it happened in Dublin?

All of which takes us very far away from the real issue, which is the continued existence of the IRA and the implication of that fact - in Dublin, Cork and elsewhere.

uberwolf

ishmael whale wrote:

All of which takes us very far away from the real issue, which is the continued existence of the IRA and the implication of that fact - in Dublin, Cork and elsewhere.

indeed. Dave if you wish to discuss your perceptions of bias I can split the thread over to news/media if you PM me. Otherwise back on topic.