Martin challenges Adams over IRA

ISAW · 18-02-2011 01:13PM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Thing is most people criticising Adams wouldn't see much a of a difference between killing state forces and civillians - still terrorism as far as theý're concerned.

Ah well one could ask then "what is terrorism"
I would suggest a definition as "the killing of innocent civilians" . If the IRA had only killed non civilians they would have strong grounds to claim they were not a terrorist organisation at all by that definition. and the Us and British Army could be classed as terrorist by that definition.

Also they don't think in ratios, its still 513 civilians versus 22.

Oh - so at that rate how come 50,000 civilians in Dresden or Hiroshima or Nagasaki don't rate at all ?

Just on the timelines there - you say the officials were active only since the provo split - but really wouldn't you say the provos only really began then too?

I'd have to look at the stats.
Sutton's index
You are right! Sutton lists - 14 July 1969 to 31 December 2001 Cain brings it from 2002 to 2010.

I listed IRA not PIRA, but I accept your correction. My mistake.

I think that times article is a bit harsh to be honest. Its like its making him out to be huge in the organisation but he was only big on the college campus which doesn't seem a big deal to me.

As opposed to Adams who claims he also was in the "political wing" when others claim he was on the Army council of the PIRA. You do know who was involved in the Republican club in UCG at the time?

I'm just saying that one rule seems to apply to Adams and a different standard to Gilmore and others.

As I was saying it was nowhere near the involvment Adams had with the provos - so I can understand people not being as bothered by it.

What "involvement"? There is no information about Adams being active on PIRA missions either is there?

Bottle_of_Smoke · 18-02-2011 02:49PM

ISAW wrote: »

Ah well one could ask then "what is terrorism"
I would suggest a definition as "the killing of innocent civilians" . If the IRA had only killed non civilians they would have strong grounds to claim they were not a terrorist organisation at all by that definition. and the Us and British Army could be classed as terrorist by that definition.

I just define it as using guerrilla type attacks and fear of attacks to achieve political aims - whether the target is the president, army general or local plumber. Its a neutral term for me in that I don't recognise terrorism as good or bad in itself, its simply a tactic.

Just to be clear in that quote I am not defending that argument as reasonable or correct - it is just my opinion on why people criticise Adams. I'm not a fan of Sinn Fein as you may have guessed but that is nothing to do with them being the political wing of the IRA

Oh - so at that rate how come 50,000 civilians in Dresden or Hiroshima or Nagasaki don't rate at all ?

As above - I'm not saying its logical - I just believe it to be people's reasoning

I'd have to look at the stats.
Sutton's index
You are right! Sutton lists - 14 July 1969 to 31 December 2001 Cain brings it from 2002 to 2010.

I listed IRA not PIRA, but I accept your correction. My mistake.

As opposed to Adams who claims he also was in the "political wing" when others claim he was on the Army council of the PIRA. You do know who was involved in the Republican club in UCG at the time?

I'm just saying that one rule seems to apply to Adams and a different standard to Gilmore and others.

Theres a good few journalists and republicans who said the same. Though there were never claims about Gilmore being near the OIRA army council.

What "involvement"? There is no information about Adams being active on PIRA missions either is there?

Sorry when I said provos I should have said provisional movement. I doubt he ever got his hands dirty. He made speeches at PIRA funerals/carried PIRA coffins, made statements supporting the actions of the PIRA. So he was seen as much more involved.

caseyann · 18-02-2011 03:03PM

ISAW wrote: »

Ah well one could ask then "what is terrorism"
I would suggest a definition as "the killing of innocent civilians" . If the IRA had only killed non civilians they would have strong grounds to claim they were not a terrorist organisation at all by that definition. and the Us and British Army could be classed as terrorist by that definition.

So you would say USA are terrorists and Japan were and People who founded America are terrorists.I could go on and on and on.And Israel?
They all bombed and killed civilians.
Yet they only call Hamas terrorists lol
It is only when a recognized government say its terrorism it is how does that work?

Nodin · 18-02-2011 03:58PM

Bambi wrote: »

Not to mention ordering them to torture and/or murder their former comrades. That's if you want to drag civil war politics back up.

It's a well known fact that dragging people out of their beds and shooting them was a popular sport back in the 1920's, and all participants enjoyed it greatly. Its only in recent times it's become the heinous evil we know today.

wee truck big driver · 18-02-2011 09:51PM

for a definition on terrorists you would have to ask the british or americans. they and them alone have the right to decide but you will have to get a daily update because the leaders they are arming and training today could well be tomorrows terrorists, with the obvious exception of israel

ICE HOUSE · 18-02-2011 09:54PM

Pot and Kettle

wee truck big driver · 18-02-2011 10:31PM

ICE HOUSE wrote: »

Pot and Kettle

nice a smoke and a cup of tea

Nehaxak · 19-02-2011 01:48AM

Flapjack and a pancake.

Anyway, it's only electioneering from Gollum Martin and FF. They know they're a dead and finished party so they'll do whatever it takes to hang on to as many seats as they can in the hope they'll maintain some speaking rights as opposition.

The people I blame the most are the media, both broadcast and print, for giving FF and Martin in particular, more time than they deserve as they deserve nothing at all.

If the media had any balls, they'd conduct a real leaders debate without anyone from FF in attendance at all as there's not a chance in hell they'll ever get back into government again, ever, ever, ever.

ISAW · 19-02-2011 01:15PM

caseyann wrote: »

So you would say USA are terrorists and Japan were and People who founded America are terrorists.

Japan? don't know. But the USA under the definition clearly - yes. It is a bit anachronictic to put modern standards on over 200 years ago but the actions of the "sons of Liberty2 would be considered "terrorism" under today's standards yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Liberty

I could go on and on and on.

Please feel free to -,just because they claim to not be terrorists or because you support them does not mean they are not terrorist by their own definitions. I mean the Us have to change their own definition of torture and terrorism to avoid it.

And Israel?

Israel like Ireland is a geographical entity. Zionist people in Israel who gerrymander the entire country so that Jewish Zionists hove control are clearly not operating in a democratic fashion. especially when they bottle in millions of citizens in Gaza and bopmb them and starve them of food and medical supplies.
By the way ever heard of "The Stern Gang"

So short answer Isreal -yes why not?

They all bombed and killed civilians.
Yet they only call Hamas terrorists lol

Indeed.

It is only when a recognized government say its terrorism it is how does that work?

No actually because Hamas are in government. It is a case of double standards - ignore when you break the rules yourself and accuse others when they do it. It is true for the US France Russia and oither empires. They do it on each other - so I'm not surprised the ex Official IRA types do it on the provos. pot kettle and black spring to mind.

ISAW · 19-02-2011 01:23PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

Flapjack and a pancake.

Anyway, it's only electioneering from Gollum Martin and FF. They know they're a dead and finished party

LOL and that comment isn't electioneering?

so they'll do whatever it takes to hang on to as many seats as they can in the hope they'll maintain some speaking rights as opposition.

You need SEVEN seats to have speaking rights as a party. FF will certainly have that!

i doubt Labour in opposition will have much more seats then FF if any. It is a bananas idea that Martin is saying what he is saying because it is all part of a plan to have more opposition seats than Labour.

The people I blame the most are the media, both broadcast and print, for giving FF and Martin in particular, more time than they deserve as they deserve nothing at all.

Actually there are Laws which says they have to give them time. Broadcasting Act changes which FG opposed and Labour in particular supported. dont blame FF for that!

If the media had any balls, they'd conduct a real leaders debate without anyone from FF in attendance at all as there's not a chance in hell they'll ever get back into government again, ever, ever, ever.

Spoken like the true stickie/Bolshevik/trot/secret politbureau member - in opposition it is "free speech for all - don't censor us" but if they get in it is stalinist gags on the media and "free speech for all - excepot those we don't like"

wee truck big driver · 19-02-2011 10:30PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

Flapjack and a pancake.

Anyway, it's only electioneering from Gollum Martin and FF. They know they're a dead and finished party so they'll do whatever it takes to hang on to as many seats as they can in the hope they'll maintain some speaking rights as opposition.

The people I blame the most are the media, both broadcast and print, for giving FF and Martin in particular, more time than they deserve as they deserve nothing at all.

If the media had any balls, they'd conduct a real leaders debate without anyone from FF in attendance at all as there's not a chance in hell they'll ever get back into government again, ever, ever, ever.

or you having a laugh are or you really this thick fianna fail arent finished and its highly lightly that witha few years of fine gael and labour. people will be begging them to run the country yourself included

Nehaxak · 20-02-2011 01:46AM

ISAW wrote: »

LOL and that comment isn't electioneering?

Do you normally jump to conclusions that have nothing whatsoever to do with anything being said at all ? Why or how would or could I be electioneering when I'm not a member of any party and I'm also not stupid enough to think that anything, absolutely anything I could ever say on this or any other forum for that matter would ever impact or change anyone else's views, or otherwise get them to vote one way or the other ?

You need SEVEN seats to have speaking rights as a party. FF will certainly have that!

Name the seven FF politicians you think will be elected ?

Their best hope was Pat Carey and even he'd be lucky at this stage to end up in a fight for the third seat.
There is not a hope in hell FF will get any more than 5 politicians elected this time around, unless the election is rigged, which it won't be.

i doubt Labour in opposition will have much more seats then FF if any. It is a bananas idea that Martin is saying what he is saying because it is all part of a plan to have more opposition seats than Labour.

As much as I don't like Labour, that's a ridiculous statement to make. Labour will be the second biggest party in the Dail after the election, behind FG who will most likely ramp home with a significant majority over all other parties.

Actually there are Laws which says they have to give them time. Broadcasting Act changes which FG opposed and Labour in particular supported. dont blame FF for that!

My point is that, and I'm sure many other people are wondering the same, why the media continue to afford FF so much of a platform when they are and will be forever more, nothing more than a fringe party gone the way of the PD's and never to return. They're finished, the party is well and truly over.

Spoken like the true stickie/Bolshevik/trot/secret politbureau member - in opposition it is "free speech for all - don't censor us" but if they get in it is stalinist gags on the media and "free speech for all - excepot those we don't like"

I'm only surprised you didn't mention I was a member of the KGB, CIA and Mi5 as well :rolleyes:
If all you have in your arsenal of replies is childish insults, then please, don't bother.

There is NO legitimate reason other than the plain and simple act of propaganda that the media are affording FF so much time.

BTW, thanks for making my mind up for me in this regards, I was going to give a preference to FF as I kind of liked Pat Carey as a person and what he's played a large part in with the regeneration in my area I live, but to see the likes of you and your views, it's turned me right off.
I'm voting SF number 1 and not casting any other preference at all, cheers for that.

Martin challenges Adams over IRA

Comments