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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Numbers up Gerry

1…2122242627…35

Comments

  • #692
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    How did his cousin fight? Did he target civilians or launch attacks which recklessly endangered the lives of civilians? If his cousin did, and he refrains from calling him such, then I suppose he would be a hypocrite.

    Well watch it so.


  • #693
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    No
    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    I'm talking about northern ireland.

    There wasn't a referendum recently - but the opinion polls are overwhelmingly in favour of the union. Don't make me google that for you.


  • #694
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    Oh so he founded the Irish volunteers, and now said he agreed with his view of using violence.

    There you have it straight from the horses mouth he agreed with killing and violence.


  • #695
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    There wasn't a referendum recently - but the opinion polls are overwhelmingly in favour of the union. Don't make me google that for you.

    Opinion polls, enough said seriously, you said the majority of the north want to remain British, I don't think polls with a couple of 100 people count as the majority.

    Google all you want.


  • #696
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    And now we have mcDowell telling us his 3 cousins were in the IRA and how they actively killed people.

    No condemnation from him, hypocrisy if I ever seen it, unbelievable.


  • Advertisement
  • #697
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,210 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    No
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Britain will no longer defend the percieved right of Northern Irish men and women to be British citizens, they will however continue to recognise and militarily defend the right of Falklanders to be British.
    Seeing anything here?

    I get the feeling you don't really understand what you are talking about...


  • #698
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    RandomName2 wrote: »

    I don't know why Happyman42 brought Falklands into the equation. Both the Falklands and Gibraltar were asked if they wanted independence or to change sovereignty and they both overwhelming declined.

    Both the above are of strategic importance to the British and they where only ever going to win those referendums. It is different in NI though, it is of no strategic importance anymore and swallows huge amounts of money and is no longer a training ground for the BA, so they will no longer defend those who perceive themselves to be British in Ireland, the time is coming when it will be expedient to sail off into the sunset, like they did in colonies all over the world.
    What we on the island have to do is make sure that they don't leave their customary mess behind them.


  • #699
    Wattle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,075 ✭✭✭Wattle


    No
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Yes it was exploitative as RTE cherrypick this case from the vaults of misery whenever their masters decide it is time to have a pop at SF. We see no similar investigations into other cases of equal and worse misery caused by the conflict.


    It is now written in an internationally binding agreement with the south and the parties involved in the conflict.
    Britain will no longer defend the percieved right of Northern Irish men and women to be British citizens, they will however continue to recognise and militarily defend the right of Falklanders to be British.
    Seeing anything here?


    Where did I or anybody else say that? You do know how the organisation was structured, why for instance the RUC could not arrest somebody for being a member of SF? Maybe some reading is required?


    And again, where did I say that the media caused their grief? 'Their grief is being exploited.....'
    Maybe you might start listening to me, rather than to what your biased self wants to listen to?

    I still don't get how they are supposed to be exploiting the relatives. Presumably they took part in the program of their own freewill? They want to find the bodies and surely keeping the issue in the public eye will only help.


  • #700
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    awec wrote: »
    I get the feeling you don't really understand what you are talking about...

    Oh I do, and so does Ian Paisley and Peter Robinson, they changed their tune significantly when they finally realised it. Ordinary Unionists are not admitting to it yet though but their anger is expressing itself in the Flag protests and the new cry of their culture being eroded.


  • #701
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Wattle wrote: »
    I still don't get how they are supposed to be exploiting the relatives. Presumably they took part in the program of their own freewill? They want to find the bodies and surely keeping the issue in the public eye will only help.

    Oh come on, what purpose did the programme serve? We know everything already and there was no new evidence at all, just more hearsay and personal opinions.
    How's about one of these journalists doing the hard work and actually finding out something that might help? Wouldn't that be more useful?


  • Advertisement
  • #702
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,210 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    No
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Oh I do, and so does Ian Paisley and Peter Robinson, they changed their tune significantly when they finally realised it. Ordinary Unionists are not admitting to it yet though but their anger is expressing itself in the Flag protests and the new cry of their culture being eroded.

    What on earth does that even mean?


  • #703
    Wattle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,075 ✭✭✭Wattle


    No
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Oh come on, what purpose did the programme serve? We know everything already and there was no new evidence at all, just more hearsay and personal opinions.
    How's about one of these journalists doing the hard work and actually finding out something that might help? Wouldn't that be more useful?

    I'm talking about the relatives point of view. Not one of them said that they want prosecutions. All they want is to give their loved one's a proper funeral. Keeping the issue highlighted could mean that the searches are continued.


  • #704
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    awec wrote: »
    What on earth does that even mean?


    I believe that they both realised that they had to work with republicans and to become the largest Unionist party in NI to have any chance of survival when a UI comes. It's the only thing that explains their sudden change from 'No No No' to the 'chuckler'. Peter now making overtures to the GAA?
    They are jockeying for position and fair play to them, pity they couldn't be honest about it.


  • #705
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Wattle wrote: »
    I'm talking about the relatives point of view. Not one of them said that they want prosecutions. All they want is to give their loved one's a proper funeral. Keeping the issue highlighted could mean that the searches are continued.

    That's why I said they need to be careful what they get involved in. This kind of agenda heavy vendetta type programme will only serve to bury whatever information still exists further underground. (excuse the terminology)


  • #706
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Just finished watching the doc on BBC4. I honestly thought, I guess because of OP's gleeful thread title, the programme was going to be about Gerry Adams but it was really about the torment of the families of the disappeared.

    The stories put out that the disappeared were spotted here-and-there were incredibly cruel. Families out looking for loved ones who were lying dead in unmarked graves. Doesn't bear thinking about.


  • #707
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    I honestly thought, I guess because of OP's gleeful thread title, the programme was going to be about Gerry Adams but it was really about the torment of the families of the disappeared.

    The stories put out that they were spotted here-and-there were incredibly cruel. Families out looking for loved ones who were lying dead in unmarked graves. Doesn't bear thinking about.

    Yeah it is terrible, Michael McDowell just saying here the free state done a lot of this to his cousins who were in the IRA.


  • #708
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,210 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    No
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I believe that they both realised that they had to work with republicans and to become the largest Unionist party in NI to have any chance of survival when a UI comes. It's the only thing that explains their sudden change from 'No No No' to the 'chuckler'. Peter now making overtures to the GAA?
    They are jockeying for position and fair play to them, pity they couldn't be honest about it.

    You do realise that me nor you, nor Peter Robinson will ever see a UI in our lifetime, right? Or is that fact still completely lost on you? :pac:


  • #709
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    Yeah it is terrible, Michael McDowell just saying here the free state done a lot of this to his cousins who were in the IRA.

    Former PD politician?


  • #710
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    awec wrote: »
    You do realise that me nor you, nor Peter Robinson will never see a UI in our lifetime, right? Or is that fact still completely lost on you? :pac:

    You're grammar suggests him and peter Robinson will see a united Ireland in their lifetime!


  • #711
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,210 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    No
    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    Just finished watching the doc on BBC4. I honestly thought, I guess because of OP's gleeful thread title, the programme was going to be about Gerry Adams but it was really about the torment of the families of the disappeared.

    The stories put out that the disappeared were spotted here-and-there were incredibly cruel. Families out looking for loved ones who were lying dead in unmarked graves. Doesn't bear thinking about.

    There wasn't a lot about Adams in the grand scheme of things - though the McConville and Adams story is obviously the most high profile.

    I think people who expected this to release new evidence were completely missing the point. It was a programme to highlight what happened and to highlight the suffering experienced by these families at the hands of the IRA.

    If it once again puts the issue in the spotlight, and causes someone somewhere to have their conscience tickled then that can only be a good thing.

    It won't be the last time we hear about it on TV.


  • Advertisement
  • #712
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    Former PD politician?

    Yep, and saying he agreed with his cousins killing people whilst they were in the IRA.

    But I guess the usual people will have nothing to say about it, but will want Adams head on a stake.


  • #713
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Oh come on, what purpose did the programme serve? We know everything already and there was no new evidence at all, just more hearsay and personal opinions.
    How's about one of these journalists doing the hard work and actually finding out something that might help? Wouldn't that be more useful?

    The programme served to highlight the fact that even though the conflict is over some families have not had closure because the bodies of their loved ones have not been found.

    It's an aspect of the troubles and is a story worth being told.

    Your attempts to turn it into some kind of RTE/BBC conspiracy theory are truly mind boggling.

    I'm pretty sure Gerry Adams is savvy enough to figure out when he's being set up, yet he still agreed to be interviewed.


  • #714
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    awec wrote: »
    You do realise that me nor you, nor Peter Robinson will ever see a UI in our lifetime, right? Or is that fact still completely lost on you? :pac:


    My dad, an Enniskillen man, used to say that about peace. That I would never live to see it, he passed the year after the GFA was signed.
    Everything is possible.


  • #715
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    I'm not sure why Adams agreed to appear on the show. Hasn't he answered all those questions before? The SF PR team must be on holidays.


  • #716
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    Did anyone ever see the programme about the disappeared during the war of independence?

    Equally as grim..


  • #717
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    I'm not sure why Adams agreed to appear on the show. Hasn't he answered all those questions before? The SF PR team must be on holidays.


    ....but he'd be damned if he didn't either.


  • #718
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    The programme served to highlight the fact that even though the conflict is over some families have not had closure because the bodies of their loved ones have not been found.

    It's an aspect of the troubles and is a story worth being told.

    Your attempts to turn it into some kind of RTE/BBC conspiracy theory are truly mind boggling.

    I'm pretty sure Gerry Adams is savvy enough to figure out when he's being set up, yet he still agreed to be interviewed.


    There was plenty of Gerry Adam's history in there too and cross examination of people who knew him. The voice over even stated that he was 'in the IRA'...not 'alleged to be in' as any serious journalist would say.
    It didn't further the cause of those people one bit imo, which is sad in the extreme.


  • #719
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    awec wrote: »
    If it once again puts the issue in the spotlight, and causes someone somewhere to have their conscience tickled then that can only be a good thing.

    I really can't bring myself to believe that anyone is still withholding info on the locations of the bodies. Firstly, I don't think someone could be so resentful for that length of time and secondly this is a millstone around the neck of SF and the image of Republicans generally.

    Expanding on the latter point, I'd imagine that when immunity from prosecution was granted Republicans would have ordered those who had info to give it rather than asked iykwim.

    The idea that former Republicans are refusing to reveal grave sites doesn't stand to reason.


  • #720
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,210 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    No
    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    I really can't bring myself to believe that anyone is still withholding info on the locations of the bodies. Firstly, I don't think someone could be so resentful for that length of time and secondly this is a millstone around the neck of SF and the image of Republicans generally.

    Expanding on the latter point, I'd imagine that when immunity from prosecution was granted Republicans would have ordered those who had info to give it rather than asked iykwim.

    The idea that former Republicans are refusing to reveal gave sites doesn't stand to reason.

    Maybe, or maybe not. I don't think there's any harm in trying though. Perhaps there are people who don't even realise that they have useful information - I am sure that's not uncommon with things like this.


  • Advertisement
  • #721
    Wattle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,075 ✭✭✭Wattle


    No
    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    I really can't bring myself to believe that anyone is still withholding info on the locations of the bodies. Firstly, I don't think someone could be so resentful for that length of time and secondly this is a millstone around the neck of SF and the image of Republicans generally.

    Expanding on the latter point, I'd imagine that when immunity from prosecution was granted Republicans would have ordered those who had info to give it rather than asked iykwim.

    The idea that former Republicans are refusing to reveal gave sites doesn't stand to reason.

    That's not quite true. In one case they were told that a body was in a particular bog. The bog was absolutely enormous. Not pinpointing exactly where the body was useless for the people searching.


Advertisement