Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Adams BBC One

Options
  • 28-06-2010 11:21pm
    #1
    Big Mouth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 234 ✭✭


    Anyone see this? Great to see the high regard Gerry Adams is held in across the world. A great man who will I think will go down in History as a visionary Irish man and a real Mandela like character.

    I'm sure their will plenty on here who will knock him and disagree with my comments but certainly the likes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton would not.


«13456

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    Didnt see the program but i agree definitly up there with mandela. only for him there would be no peace process.

    dont think he gets the attention he deserves in this country north or south. in the north because obviously hes seen as a 'terrorist' and the south because sinn fein are up and coming.

    but history will judge him kindly


  • Options
    #3
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    paky wrote: »
    only for him there would be no peace process.

    The only problem is that only for him and others like him there would have been no need for a peace process.

    EDIT: For whatever reason, "others like him" was grossly misinterpreted by some people; see post 10 below for clarification.


  • Options
    #4
    aDeener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭aDeener


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    The only problem is that only for him and others like him there would have been no need for a peace process.

    in your expert opinion, what do you think would have happened without gerry adams or others like him?


  • Options
    #5
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    why would you say that?


  • Options
    #6
    Big Mouth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 234 ✭✭Big Mouth


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    The only problem is that only for him and others like him there would have been no need for a peace process.

    Yeah, he should have accepted British Rule without question. Also he should have not stood up and defended Catholic people in the North the last 40 years or complain about silly little things like dying hunger strikers or internment:rolleyes:

    What about the BA lads who shot dead peace protesters? Would those "soldiers" and their like have anything to do with the Troubles?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    The only problem is that only for him and others like him there would have been no need for a peace process.

    That's literally the most pointless, uneducated 'let them eat cake' post I've ever read on boards. And I sometimes read BGRH


  • Options
    #8
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    paky wrote: »
    Didnt see the program but i agree definitly up there with mandela. only for him there would be no peace process.

    dont think he gets the attention he deserves in this country north or south. in the north because obviously hes seen as a 'terrorist' and the south because sinn fein are up and coming.

    but history will judge him kindly

    Takes more than one to tango pal.

    Geróid certainly contributed to the peace process and I listened to himself and Mairtín on Meeeriam last weekend.

    Two nice lads in fairness.


  • Options
    #9
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    The only problem is that only for him and others like him there would have been no need for a peace process.

    Living in a colony, somebody was always likely to use violent means to oppose British rule, but it could have been someone who would never have the sense to stop.


  • Options
    #10
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Apparently your definition of "others like him" is a lot more narrow than mine.

    From an objective perspective "others like him" clearly transcends political affiliations. I was referring to all persons who make use of force to apply their politics.

    But, you know, don't let that stop the witchhunt.


  • Options
    #11
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    I always thought Martin McGuinness was the real brains of the operation, and the more trustworthy one dispite him being the only who was shooting or certainly willing to.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    steelcityblues
    Registered Users Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭steelcityblues


    Turned it off after 10 mins

    Self congratulating, third-party platitudes galore, type of rubbish!


  • Options
    #13
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    paky wrote: »
    but history will judge him kindly

    Not with books like the secret history of the IRA around.


  • Options
    #14
    Japer
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 792 ✭✭✭Japer


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    The only problem is that only for him and others like him there would have been no need for a peace process.
    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    I was referring to all persons who make use of force to apply their politics.
    +1. There are thousands of people who were / are law abiding citizens in the north and who were injured or killed , or whose partners were injured or killed, and I would have more sympathy and respect for them, , no matter their background, religion or politics, simply because they were always law abiding, hard working citizens. Still, we have to move on, and at least Adams and others on both sides are for peace now.


  • Options
    #15
    Notorious97
    Registered Users Posts: 1,479 ✭✭✭Notorious97


    I caught the last 50 minutes of it, any idea if this will be shown again? I really think this programme did him justice, and it showed a more human side to him, he was hugging trees with tony blair lol Alot of people from both sides seem to hold him in high regard, i think definitely he should be more involved in Gaza etc.

    As for history, I strongly believe he is the only man who could have moved the armed struggle into a peaceful one, and I know a lot of people on here throughout the next week or so posting here will lash him out of it for being involved in the republican movement. Its terrible all the bombs that went off and killed innocent people, but Britain done a lot worse (and no this doesn’t justify killing innocent people either) but it was a horrible war.

    I really think that if the ‘troubles’ (not fond of that term for what was basically a civil war) had not occurred, then Northern Ireland would still be as it was prior to Bloody Sunday, catholics marching for their basic civil rights in their own country from a foreign ruler, poor housing conditions, no job prospects, treated as dogs. I think the only way to remember all who died is to ensure peace prevails and that both sides come together to help create a better Ireland, and hopefully a united one sometime in the future. I wouldn’t care if somebody from either side up north was running a united Ireland, as long as it is fair, equal and just. Britian should have left this country along time ago.


  • Options
    #16
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    The only problem is that only for him and others like him there would have been no need for a peace process.

    The North was run as a sectarian statelet from its inception in 1922. Gerry Adams was born in 1948, thus - even allowing for him to be the Fenian equivalent of the baby in 'Family guy - the inevitable difficulties that arose can hardly be ascribed to him.


  • Options
    #17
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Notorious97 wrote: »
    I really think that if the ‘troubles’ (not fond of that term for what was basically a civil war) had not occurred, then Northern Ireland would still be as it was prior to Bloody Sunday, catholics marching for their basic civil rights in their own country from a foreign ruler, poor housing conditions, no job prospects, treated as dogs.
    Civil War? What are you talking about? People in Britain were not even affected by what was happening. It was hardly a Civil War.


  • Options
    #18
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Never mind the bombs that went off over there... billions of pounds worth of damage.


  • Options
    #19
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Never mind the bombs that went off over there... billions of pounds worth of damage.
    Billions?


  • Options
    #20
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Billions?

    yup. they were truck bombs rather than carbombs back then


  • Options
    #21
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Billions?
    Yeah, here is one example.
    Huge fertilizer bombs they were. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/24/newsid_2523000/2523345.stm
    Wiki article


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Notorious97
    Registered Users Posts: 1,479 ✭✭✭Notorious97


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Civil War? What are you talking about? People in Britain were not even affected by what was happening. It was hardly a Civil War.


    Im not talking about the people of britain, im talking about the people who live in ulster, both sides of it, thats a civil war between each other, and against the illegal forces of occupation in northern ireland. Might not be a standard definition of what civil war is, but all i mean is calling it the 'troubles' is simply a means dumbing it down from what it actually was.


  • Options
    #23
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Yeah, here is one example.
    Huge fertilizer bombs they were. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/24/newsid_2523000/2523345.stm
    Wiki article
    Oh, I hadn't realised they planted such large bombs. That makes me hate Adams and the nationalist movement even more. Imagine how many people something like that could kill.

    It doesn't bare thinking about.


  • Options
    #24
    Notorious97
    Registered Users Posts: 1,479 ✭✭✭Notorious97


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Oh, I hadn't realised they planted such large bombs. That makes me hate Adams and the nationalist movement even more. Imagine how many people something like that could kill.

    It doesn't bare thinking about.


    Why do you only hate the nationalist movement more? The whole reason the IRA exists is because Britain are here illegally, it isnt like they woke up one morning and decided to pick a country to start bombing at random. The exist out of a situation which Irish people didnt create....and no i dont condone or agree with bombing civilians, im just pointing out the IRA were born from a situation that they didnt not create.


  • Options
    #25
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Notorious97 wrote: »
    Im not talking about the people of britain, im talking about the people who live in ulster, both sides of it, thats a civil war between each other, and against the illegal forces of occupation in northern ireland. Might not be a standard definition of what civil war is, but all i mean is calling it the 'troubles' is simply a means dumbing it down from what it actually was.
    Again I wouldn't exactly call it a Civil War in Ulster. I grew up in Monaghan, as did my siblings, and my parents and the only time the troubles ever affected us was when we wanted to go North for whatever reason. And even at that we were probably more afraid of checkpoints then anything else.

    Oh and the British were not illegaly occupying Northern Ireland. Pointing something in bolb print does not make it true.


  • Options
    #26
    Notorious97
    Registered Users Posts: 1,479 ✭✭✭Notorious97


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Again I wouldn't exactly call it a Civil War in Ulster. I grew up in Monaghan, as did my siblings, and my parents and the only time the troubles ever affected us was when we wanted to go North for whatever reason. And even at that we were probably more afraid of checkpoints then anything else.

    Oh and the British were not illegaly occupying Northern Ireland. Pointing something in bolb print does not make it true.


    I said it probably isnt the correct definition, i just think the term 'troubles' is a stupid way of describing it.

    How are they not illegally occupying Northern Ireland? I dont have a problem with religions or anything, i think the people of the north should be free from London influence, which is finally looking the case. This is drifting off topic so i wont get into it more, im only pointing out people are quick to hop on the anti gerry adams band wagon, irish people in fact do this alot, and they dont really consider the situation britain created for nationalists in northern ireland. I get what you are saying and all, i just see it a bit different thats all.


  • Options
    #27
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Notorious97 wrote: »
    Why do you only hate the nationalist movement more?
    Because they killed scores of innocent people. Nationalists complain about bloody Sunday but the IRA have killed far more civilians then the BA.
    Notorious97 wrote: »
    The whole reason the IRA exists is because Britain are here illegally, it isnt like they woke up one morning and decided to pick a country to start bombing at random.
    Britain does not illegally occupy Northern Ireland.
    Notorious97 wrote: »
    The exist out of a situation which Irish people didnt create....and no i dont condone or agree with bombing civilians, im just pointing out the IRA were born from a situation that they didnt not create.
    The IRA created a much worse situation though. Things were bad but they made it ten times worse. If the IRA hadn't started their campaign the entire provence would not have had to be militarised.


  • Options
    #28
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Why would anyone think NI in the UK is illegal?


  • Options
    #29
    Winty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭Winty


    Big Mouth wrote: »
    Gerry Adams is held in across the world. A great man who will I think will go down in History as a visionary Irish man



    Was his niece interviewed?


    I agree with mike65 Martin McGuinness is more honest, he has publicly spoken about his time as a leader in the IRA, Adams has said nothing


  • Options
    #30
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Notorious97 wrote: »
    I said it probably isnt the correct definition, i just think the term 'troubles' is a stupid way of describing it.
    But why? I think it's a rather fitting name.
    Notorious97 wrote: »
    How are they not illegally occupying Northern Ireland? I dont have a problem with religions or anything, i think the people of the north should be free from London influence, which is finally looking the case. This is drifting off topic so i wont get into it more, im only pointing out people are quick to hop on the anti gerry adams band wagon, irish people in fact do this alot, and they dont really consider the situation britain created for nationalists in northern ireland. I get what you are saying and all, i just see it a bit different thats all.
    They are not illegally occupying Northern Ireland because Northern Ireland is a home country of the U.K. And whats more the majority of the people in Northern Ireland want it that way. Republicans are a minority.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Notorious97
    Registered Users Posts: 1,479 ✭✭✭Notorious97


    The British Government over all the years they have been in this country in some form of another have done alot worse, i never once have condoned any bomb by the IRA, my earliar posts i said the bad things by britain are not an excuse to bomb civilians.

    The last time i checked, Britain illegally took over this country, illegally planted their own people mainly inulster, and down through the years we have had rebellion after rebellion to remove their rule. That to me makes it seem they are here illegally. Collusion, internment, murder of innocent people by loyalist / british security forces. Yes i know the IRA killed innocent people too, both sides done horrible things, but the IRA wouldnt exist or have a reason to exist if Britain hadnt treated our own people as they did. Again im not justifying bombing innocent people at all.


Advertisement