Dessie O'hare Should Stay In The Slammer Forever

bertiebowl · 12-12-2002 5:31pm #1

I'm outraged that the spineless ars*licking government and in particular Regressive Democretin McDowel are shaping up to let out Dessie O'Hare no less!!!!!!!

J*sus Chr*st - this guy used a hammer and chisel to remove some poor sods FINGERS......and was only caught after a major shoot out which involved the ARMY.....for gawd's sake

We can't let animals like that back out on the streets.....what the hell is McDumbAss doing??

mike65 · 12-12-2002 7:52pm

Hmmmm, I agree he was a very nasty piece of work, all the talk about O'Hare and Mad Dog McGlinchy recently has got me remmebering just how bad things were south of the border
back in the 70/80s I think many have forgotten or are too young the really know. Anyway, he was sentenced to 40 years (his speech being worth that alone) and now he might/will get out
becuase of the Good Friday Agreement, however his crime was committed against an unarmed civilian in the Republic, then he
spoke in the dock at about taking the war to the politians/Gards/Army/Navy Prison staff/you name it of this
republic, which should protect itself before it cuts terrorists any slack.

Mike.

12-12-2002 8:03pm

Originally posted by bertiebowl
I'm outraged that the spineless ars*licking government and in particular Regressive Democretin McDowel are shaping up to let out Dessie O'Hare no less!!!!!!!

J*sus Chr*st - this guy used a hammer and chisel to remove some poor sods FINGERS......and was only caught after a major shoot out which involved the ARMY.....for gawd's sake

We can't let animals like that back out on the streets.....what the hell is McDumbAss doing??

AFAIK these people at least in the North anyway are released under license.
In other words if they re offend once they come out, they will be put back in prison and locked up for the entire sentence this time with out having the Good Friday agreement to hide behind.

So on that basis they know that they have only one chance to stay out.
Un palletable as it may seem,they are out for the greater good, ie the hundreds of people that are still alive up north who other wise would be dead on both sides if the release programme wasn't followed through.

It's a bitter pill , most of all for many thousands of victims families, but a pill worth swallowing as the only other option was a continuation of murder and mahem.
I'm not saying it's right but the sour side of pragmatism really.
mm

daveirl · 15-12-2002 1:37pm

This post has been deleted.

15-12-2002 3:25pm

Originally posted by daveirl
They terrorised the entire country and were just bad pieces of work. In fact one of the guys in the gang robbed my dad at gunpoint, so sorry if I have a problem with guys who threatened to kill my dad getting out after 14 years of a 40 year sentence.

I wouldn't like that either, and would be as fervant, if I had personal experience.
But they are grouped with all the rest and thats that.
If they weren't , the whole peace thing would come asunder, probably.
mm

BuffyBot · 15-12-2002 5:50pm

Originally posted by Man

But they are grouped with all the rest and thats that.
If they weren't , the whole peace thing would come asunder, probably.

I doubt this guy in particular is likely to have much effect on the peace process. Personally I don't feel that anyone should of been released earlier - someone who commits a crime, should serve the sentence and not be used as bargaining chips. However - this guy is one who definitely should not be released. He was nothing but a criminal using "the cause" as a blanket for his own means to target civilians.

hallelujajordan · 16-12-2002 11:58am

Originally posted by bertiebowl

We can't let animals like that back out on the streets.....what the hell is McDumbAss doing??

We voted overwhelmingly in this country to back the Good Friday Agreement. If Dessie O Hare falls under the remit of this then he should be released . . . .

Xterminator · 16-12-2002 12:56pm

Originally posted by BuffyBot
I doubt this guy in particular is likely to have much effect on the peace process. Personally I don't feel that anyone should of been released earlier - someone who commits a crime, should serve the sentence and not be used as bargaining chips. However - this guy is one who definitely should not be released. He was nothing but a criminal using "the cause" as a blanket for his own means to target civilians.

I understand the sentiment, but I reckon your not thinking it through.

The Ceasefire, and subsequent peace process was negotiated on the basis of the good friday agreement, which was accepted by all sides.
Of course there are some elements of the treaty that we would rather not have to implement. But the decision was that for the greater good, (peace on our island) we would implement the good friday agreement.
You cant pickk and choose which elelments of it you like, nor suspend its clauses in a particularly nasty case.

There were many poeple up the north who were upset, especially the familes of those killed doing there jobs, like the security forces, shopkeepers etc who saw the killers of there loved ones walk free. They too were disgusted, but it was the provce we ageed to pay.

I would say the alternative was worse though, which was the continuation of the armed struggle.

X

daveirl · 17-12-2002 1:29am

This post has been deleted.

sceptre · 17-12-2002 10:07am

It raises a question though, given that he's getting out just because of his involvement with the INLA, not because the crime he was put away for was on behalf of the INLA.

May be a theoretical question but if there are any people in the slammer out there who just happen to be members of the IRA/INLA/<insert other qualifying organisation> who murdered their granny for no good reason, do they qualify too?

daveirl · 17-12-2002 11:36am

This post has been deleted.

17-12-2002 12:30pm

Originally posted by daveirl
Well I wouldn't let any of them out.

See to me any of these people getting out is absolutely absurd. Would the people who support IRA/INLA terrorists getting out because they declared a ceasefire, not bring Osama Bin Laden to justice if Al'Queda declared a ceasefire tomorrow.

The validity of the ceasefires is questionable to say the least. The IRA still run smuggling operations to try and set up their members in business now that they've stopped shooting people. The IRA still retain their links with other terrorist organisations like FARC and ETA.

Oh I can see your reasoning and agree pretty much with it .
But , from a UK perspective, the costly end of the Republican dispute with Britain has been quelled, in that no more soldiers are being blown up, no more, infrastructure being blasted(with the exception of the Real IRA activities) etc, etc.
And obviously all the lives that have been saved.
There is a bit of a distinction between the Al Queda situation and the Republican War in the North.
There is little or no possibility, of an Al queda ceasefire,given what they would demand in return for it.

Originally posted by Sceptre:

May be a theoretical question but if there are any people in the slammer out there who just happen to be members of the IRA/INLA/<insert other qualifying organisation> who murdered their granny for no good reason, do they qualify too?

Of course they'd stay in jail for that, if the sentence was running concurrent with the so called "political" crimes.
mm

daveirl · 20-12-2002 8:36pm

This post has been deleted.

21-12-2002 12:30pm

Originally posted by daveirl
Well the PIRA called thier ceasefire before getting anything in return and even when they did get a return, they didn't get anything approaching what they desired.

The fact that it is unlikely that Al'Quaeda wouldn't call a ceasefire is secondary anyway. My point is that few would let them off with nothing if they did call a ceasefire, but that the IRA were allowed to get away with murder.

Well two points in relation to this, in my view anyway.
Firstly,AlQ'uaeda and the IRA have one thing in common-They have killed innocent civilians, based on the religion they have or , based on their loyalty to a country with a different religion.
Both had a warped view of their religion, in that, being a Catholic, one is supposed to obey the commandment, Thou shalt not Kill!
But then both thought they were at war so they could overlook the strict letter of the law respectively.

The second is the distinction: the IRA called a ceasefire after secret negotiations lead them to believe that Sinn Féin would be allowed into an NI Government, and the probability of the several concessions, we are now familiar with..
True, they had got nothing at the time they called the ceasefire,but it was also plain they would get nothing without it. Now in all fairness,even the tamest of Al'Queda demands would not wash with the U.S-so theres no comparison, in that theres no hope of a cessation of activities by them.
And regarding:

even when they did get a return, they didn't get anything approaching what they desired.

Honestly, if someone told me that ten years ago, Sinn Féin would be allowed on to policing boards and that recruitment to the police in the North was to be on a 50:50 basis Catholic v Protestant and that they would be cabinet ministers in a powersharing government, I would have said go back to sleep.

Not everything they wanted, but an awfull lot.
mm

daveirl · 21-12-2002 12:56pm

This post has been deleted.

21-12-2002 3:55pm

I'm sorry, but I did when I said:

theres no comparison, in that theres no hope of a cessation of activities by them.

Clearly as I posted further up, the UK authorities, were of the opinion, that accomadating Sinn Féin IRA was going to save them a lot of lives and money, and bring life in NI to the somewhat more peacefull society that it is now.
You are very correct, when you say that the IRA were let away with Murder, but for the greater good.
Later I said:

the distinction: the IRA called a ceasefire after secret negotiations lead them to believe that Sinn Féin would be allowed into an NI Government, and the probability of the several concessions, we are now familiar with..

and:

Now in all fairness,even the tamest of Al'Queda demands would not wash with the U.S-so theres no comparison, in that theres no hope of a cessation of activities by them.

In other words,at least here in Ireland and Britain, the remenants of hard line Republicans who are outside the GFA are being dealt with and if put in jail for crimes committed , they will not get released untill their due date.
I don't see Al'Queda in their remotest dreams convincing the U.S that if some of their demands are met,they will cease their activities.
Therefore in my opinion by you saying:

The fact that it is unlikely that Al'Quaeda wouldn't call a ceasefire is secondary anyway. My point is that few would let them off with nothing if they did call a ceasefire, but that the IRA were allowed to get away with murder.

You are making an invalid comparison.
mm

daveirl · 21-12-2002 5:50pm

This post has been deleted.

21-12-2002 8:18pm

Originally posted by daveirl
The IRA knew they were losing when they declared their ceasefire. The organisation had been infiltrated to the highest levels by intelligence services both Irish and British. Loyalist paramilitaries were taking the fight to them and inficting some serious assasinations. They cut their loses and declared a ceasefire. Don't kid yourself by thinking they did it for the good of the country.

And Gt Britain were winning?? I don't think so, it was a draw pure and simple-To carry it on would have cost lives and a lot of money.

Now what's to say that Al'Quaeda wouldn't decide that they were so comprimised and ineffective and to break up and form other organisations - like the IRA [Real IRA + Continutity IRA] Again because it's unlikely doesn't mean it is an invalid situation.

It's unlikely because they are more than a tad more fanatical than the IRA ever were...
I'm saying you are making an invalid comparison, because the situation doesn't exist.
You are comparing a hypothetical with a reality.

I don't believe my assertion that"Now in all fairness,even the tamest of Al'Queda demands would not wash with the U.S-so theres no comparison, in that theres no hope of a cessation of activities by them." is flawed.
If a palestinian Republic was declared including all of Jerusalem, that wouldn't stop Al'Queda's activities.
Their aims are much broader than that and would entail, every U.S business interest in the middle East closing down and moving back home,a long time will elapse before that happens.
Indeed, they promote a warped interpretation of islam and a holy war with the Christian west to propagate their extremist view of Islam worldwide, a view that is shunned by most muslims in the West.
I've never heard Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness, wanting to Convert Queen Elisabeth to Catholicism.
The Bush Administration is not negotiating with anyone at the moment to bring about a Palestinian State(Republic),( whereas the British Government, entered negotiations to bring about home rule for NI )U.S forces are still at war with Al'Queda in Afghanistan.Theres no sign of the U.S intervening in any meaningfull way, in the suicide bus bombers Vs the Jewish state row... and Osama did say:

Any effort directed against America and the Jews yields positive and direct results - Allah willing. It is far better for anyone to kill a single American soldier than to squander his efforts on other activities. ...

Now the IRA were killing British soldiers and police officers right up to their cessation, but what they were prepared to take in order to stop that killing pales when compared to the rant*cough*, I mean interview, from which I took Osama's above comment.
http://multimedia.belointeractive.com/attack/binladen/

I would think that, the IRA/Sinn Féin's wants and needs are a lot less complicated, than whats contained there.

I'd like to qualify my comments in this thread by the way, by saying, that I realise that,I do not have personal experience of the IRA's wrath, and it's understandable that anyone that does, would find the release conditions of the GFA very unpalletable or in the case of this thread that Dessie O' Hare should be included.
mm

daveirl · 22-12-2002 12:04pm

This post has been deleted.

22-12-2002 12:25pm

Yeah, lets agree to differ , I kind of look for comprimises in most situations:D

I take your point though regarding the law, supposed to be blind to differing scenario's,do the crime, pay the time.
In most situations that should be the case, NI got a unique solution, imperfect and all as it is.
mm

gurramok · 22-12-2002 5:05pm

One thing is forgotten here is that so called ordinary murderers who are sentenced to life imprisonment are let out after 10 years or so, some have been let out for less.
I dont see big deal in singling out this case, he served 15 yrs i think, most lifers have not even done that. Life sentences these days usually means u only serve a third of 25 years !!
The system is all wrong in letting out lifers in the first place, there should be more emphasis and media attention on the many murderers in this banana republic who have been let out early !

eugene · 26-12-2002 9:49pm

God Daveirl, you have one hell of a chip on your shoulder. You said that the IRA knew they were beaten and that the Loyalists were successfully taking the war to the IRA? Catch yourself on will ya! The Republican movement had a long term strategy and this is now the current phase of that. Someone earlier mentioned Canary Wharf. That happened because the British did their usual thing and dishonoured promises, just as they did after the negotiations between Martin Mc Guiness, Gerry Adams and William Whitelaw thirty years ago. Just because you personally don't like the IRA, don't you sit on your high horse and condemn them. And it was an armed struggle because war can only be justified if everything else fails, and we all know how the British reacted to the peaceful Civil Rights movement. You probably believe the crap that the Unionists put out about that movement being a front for the IRA, well that is the sort of Protestant bull that we Catholics grew up with and are still putting up with. This country was born out of violence, that may well be distasteful but it is fact. There will only be peace when there is no need for the IRA, that day has just not come yet. But it will. No matter what anyone says, the Republican movement were never and are not sectarian, read the Irish Proclaimation...that is still the visionary rule followed by the Republican movement. Just too bad that the sectarian Unionist parties are so blinded by their hatred of all things Irish/Catholic, and in a nutshell, that is how simple the whole problem here is!

Biffa Bacon · 26-12-2002 10:42pm

You said that the IRA knew they were beaten and that the Loyalists were successfully taking the war to the IRA?

The IRA weren’t beaten but they certainly gave up. They had justified their campaign for twenty-five years on the basis that the island had been illegally partitioned by the British. However, they now recognise that unification can only come about through consent of a majority in the North. In other words, they gave up.

The Republican movement had a long term strategy and this is now the current phase of that.

No they didn’t. The peace process has only come about because the IRA finally copped on that their campaign had achieved absolutely nothing and was in fact entirely counter-productive.

Just because you personally don't like the IRA, don't you sit on your high horse and condemn them.

I will quite happily condemn them as murderers and traitors and the enemies of all those who want to see a united Ireland.

And it was an armed struggle because war can only be justified if everything else fails, and we all know how the British reacted to the peaceful Civil Rights movement.

So why did the campaign continue long after all the Civil Rights Movements demands had been met?

No matter what anyone says, the Republican movement were never and are not sectarian, read the Irish Proclaimation...that is still the visionary rule followed by the Republican movement. Just too bad that the sectarian Unionist parties are so blinded by their hatred of all things Irish/Catholic, and in a nutshell, that is how simple the whole problem here is!

No comment necessary, other than…

:rolleyes:

eugene · 26-12-2002 11:29pm

You like to pick and choose what you think you can beat in a debate. fact is, Catholics were treated as second class (or less) by so called good living and reasonable Unionists for decades......THEY STILL ARE! I know it all too personally. Catholics are and will remain the "White ******s" in Ireland until there is a United country. A man pointed out a little fact to me last week (as an example). We happened to be standing outside a shop and a Protestant woman walked by. I naturally said, "Hello Mattie" to her and she said back, "Ah, hello there". In my naivety I said to my pal that she must have forgotten my name. Now I can assure you that my pal is every bit as anti-Republican as you are but he said to me, "She didn't forget your name. She's just like so many Protestants in this town, they cannot bring themselves to utter a "Catholic" name., I told him to wise up, but it stuck with me and I encountered the same thing maybe a dozen times last week.....Christmas week FFS! And it's true. A lot of them view us with suspicion and distrust. They are more to be pitied than anything else because they cannot have too much inner peace. Strangely, I don't hold it against them because that is the way they were reared and in that sense, thay are in some way blameless but it is just a pity that they cannot think for themselves and reach out to their opposites in a true fashion instead of all these church led ecumenical functions which are quite unreal and false. Like I said earlier, NOTHING HAS CHANGED in thirty years so don't you lecture me on civil rights because sectarianism and discrimination are still rife here. If you don't see it, then you have a mental blindness or you refuse to open your eyes!

daveirl · 27-12-2002 12:26am

This post has been deleted.

eugene · 27-12-2002 2:20am

Throughout this thread, Daveirl and others have continually attacked the Republican movement. I have to agree with you that the INLA were nothing to do with Republicanism as they were gangsters and had more in common with the UFF etc than anybody else. The IRA despised the INLA because they sullied the name of genuine Republicanism. As for the Canary Wharf bombing, I knew that that was coming as did anyone with any sense at all. The death (DEATH) was unfortunate but the fact that there was only one proved that the IRA were seriously attempting to avoid human casualties. They have said that they regret all casualties and I know that they do. Circumstances led to this. The arrogant refusal of the British to consider a political way forward instigated the war escalation. Personally, I always believed that for the IRA to make the British listen to them, they had to take the war to England. The British couldn't have cared less about the number of Irish deaths and British soldiers are always expendable. Do you think for a second that 3000 English people would have been allowed to die over a thirty year campaign? If the IRA had attacked institutions like Canary Wharf in the 70's, I suspect that the negotiations that led to the GFA would have happened many years ago. I am not looking to antagonise anyone here in this thread. I listen to enough crap here and it irritates me to hear the same from Irish people who do not know the full story. As for accusing me of being sectarian, that really annoys me. It is something that I have never been guilty of. Just because I write here exactly how things still are in the north doesn't in any way make me sectarian. I fight this at every opportunity I get. I too have many Protestant friends/acquaintances and they respect my viewpoint. I don't hate any of them because they are Protestant, No, I hate the likes of Trimble etc who are hanging on with their fingertips to something that shoud have disappeared a long time ago. And as for you Biffa, you are seriously deluding yourself if you think the IRA gave up because they knew they were defeated. You have no idea how difficult it was for Gerry Adams to swing Martin McGuinness round to the current phase in the struggle. And there are many IRA who are still not happy about it but their discipline keeps them following the path decided upon by their leaders. You call them thugs and murderers. We'll see how history describes them in the future. Were Michael Collins, Dev, Pearse, Connolly etc the same thugs and murderers then?

daveirl · 27-12-2002 3:22am

This post has been deleted.

27-12-2002 3:52am

EEeeek! I am honestly getting tired and emotional with this argument...

firstly from my point of view this is ground already gone over many, many times, I am not a Republican, but there can be no justification for the killing of anybody,Women and children included.
I do not know , this Eugene chap from Adam, but what I do know is that,the sahara desert would freeze over before you would get the IRA repeating the bombing and killing that they did prior to their second ceasefire

Weren't Michael Collins and Dev both opponents of the IRA, last time I checked. Jesus sure your crowd assasinated Collins. Don't claim people like them as heros for your cause.

Even if you watched the michael collins movie with all its literary licence, you would see that, the said individuals used a lot of the same type of violence as the existing IRA did in the 70's and 80's.

They did it and are actually claimed as heroes for what is today conventionally described as acts of terrorism.

But thats the problem with dragging up the past. Rather than doing that one should be grasping the opportunities of the present and leaving the past where it is, otherwise, you drive straight into a cul de sac.
Republicans can claim past characters as heroes for themselves if they want, but where I draw the line is when they attempt to justify current or recent un popular violence with examples harking back to 1918.
We are in the here and now, democracy is transparent and must be lived with.

The UK subsidises Northern Ireland so heavily that if the Republic were to take on the burden itself it would result in an increase of €3000 in taxation for each man, women and child in the republic. We ain't going to vote for that buddy.

I don't agree with that assertion either, considering how much the Republic has been funded by the E.U over the last 30 years.
Northern Ireland and for example most of North and west wales are a priority category for E.U funding, so if a United Ireland came to pass, it is extremely doubtfull if it would cost the Irish taxpayer a whole lot.
This argument to my mind is getting too emotive now and some of the facts are getting lost to point scoring.
mm

daveirl · 27-12-2002 5:24am

This post has been deleted.

BuffyBot · 27-12-2002 9:22am

I am not looking to antagonise anyone here in this thread. I listen to enough crap here and it irritates me to hear the same from Irish people who do not know the full story.

Unfortunately from what I've seen in your posts Eugene, "the full story" in your eyes seems to be only what you see in your own opinion.

Frankly, I couldn't give a damn about a United Ireland. I don't feel any deep spiritual connection with a piece of land owned by another country. I agree with those who said just because we are an island, we automatically should be one. I'm sure many others living in the Republic don't either.

The history is past, yet some people can't seem to let it go. That applies to both sides btw, so it's no wonder the "peace process" goes around in circles. This is not to say we shouldn't remember what has happened (the supression of Catholic civil rights, the slaughters on both sides etc), but we should not use them as an excuse to say "let's kill more people"

In fact I'll be so bold as to say I'd imagine there are quite a number of people in the Republic would be quite happy if the 6 counties stayed a part of U.K. for different reasons.

Yet, so many attrocities were carried out in our names. Civilians. People shopping, people commemorating the dead, people doing everyday things which made them unacceptable as targets. No one deserves to be blown to bits as they go about their everyday lives no matter what the cause.

bonkey · 27-12-2002 12:34pm

Originally posted by eugene
Throughout this thread, Daveirl and others have continually attacked the Republican movement.

No, they have attacked terrorist actions carried out in the name of Republicanism. and condemned those who carried them out.

If all you want to do is spout rhetoric or troll, then sod off somewhere else. If, on the other hand you are interested in discussing the topic, then you might find it useful to answer the points addressed to you.

jc

Dessie O'hare Should Stay In The Slammer Forever

Comments