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

The disappeared

1…5681011

Comments

  • #212
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    So - straw man it is.

    The letter says nothing about the programme - despite An Phoblacht's creative headline. Price and Hughes weren't going to help the ICLVR, given that they were opposed to the whole process in the first place. The programme didn't suggest that they had. Their relationship to Adams - and what information they had in relation to the specific murder of Jean McConville - even if they didn't choose to help the ICLVR (or indeed, agreed with her 'disappearance' at the time) is certainly relevant to a documentary that deals with the subject.

    Yes it is relevant but so also is a families problems with it. The emphasis on the McConville family was there because that is the one with a link to Adams.
    The programme should have been honest about that or it should have given equal weight to all the family stories.
    The programme was also quite clear on the difficulties involved in recovering the bodies - including the passing of time, clouded memories, shifting bog, etc. There was no 'raft of information' left out.
    But never once passed on the information that the ICLVR was satisfied with the intervention and contributions from the IRA and that they believed them to be acting in good faith, that simple but important fact was unknown to me until the ICLVR complained about the programme (and I'm sure many others) but completely alters my view of what is going on.
    I know you have a strange view of the function of a national broadcaster but that voluntary and transparent ommission was shocking in and off itself.


  • #213
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    Agenda blah blah. The facts on the programme spoke for themselves and Gerry Adams came across as the evil man that he really is.


  • #214
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    Agenda blah blah. The facts on the programme spoke for themselves and Gerry Adams came across as the evil man that he really is.

    It obviously worked for you then.


  • #215
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Yes it is relevant but so also is a families problems with it. The emphasis on the McConville family was there because that is the one with a link to Adams.
    The programme should have been honest about that or it should have given equal weight to all the family stories.
    The Jean McConville story is not the same as the others however - it's subject to an ongoing murder investigation, post-discovery of the body, and a public representative has been linked to ordering that murder, by others within the IRA at the time. Quite how that makes that specific story more newsworthy shouldn't be difficult to grasp. Breige Wright expressed no problem with the programme in her letter.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    But never once passed on the information that the ICLVR was satisfied with the intervention and contributions from the IRA and that they believed them to be acting in good faith, that simple but important fact was unknown to me until the ICLVR complained about the programme (and I'm sure many others) but completely alters my view of what is going on.
    You'll have to forgive my scepticism.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I know you have a strange view of the function of a national broadcaster but that voluntary and transparent ommission was shocking in and off itself.
    It was neither an omission, nor shocking. The programme was quite straightforward about what the IRA had, and hadn't done with regard to helping the ICLVR - and again - no-one disputes that the IRA and SF have been as helpful as they can regarding the recovery of the bodies they actually admit to 'disappearing'.


  • #216
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    The Jean McConville story is not the same as the others however - it's subject to an ongoing murder investigation, post-discovery of the body, and a public representative has been linked to ordering that murder, by others within the IRA at the time.
    The programme was supposed to be about The Disappeared not a murder case.
    People like Manassas61 have come away with the impression that Adams is evil in regard to this matter, when one of the victims family have expressed their thanks to him for his help and also cast doubt on the testimony (given great weight by both the interviewer and producers) of Price and Hughes. Not illustrated by a programme reputedly about the Disappeared
    And you still cling to the claim that it was unbiased?
    Done with you on this subject, your own bias is clear and transparent.




    It was neither an omission, nor shocking. The programme was quite straightforward about what the IRA had, and hadn't done with regard to helping the ICLVR - and again - no-one disputes that the IRA and SF have been as helpful as they can regarding the recovery of the bodies they actually admit to 'disappearing'.

    Ah, the 'I feel it in my water, so it must be true' angle rears it head again.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The programme was supposed to be about The Disappeared not a murder case.
    So - you're now advocating that an actual 'raft of information' relating to the subject of the disappeared be omitted? Bit strange, that.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    People like Manassas61 have come away with the impression that Adams is evil in regard to this matter, when one of the victims family have expressed their thanks to him for his help
    He can be both personally culpable for a murder and selectively helpful. The Wright family would still have sympathies/alignment with the shinners in any case - so you'd have to take that into account. Breige Wright is herself a SF activist, and currently on trial for IRA membership. Not a terribly likely candidate to criticise Adams.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    and also cast doubt on the testimony (given great weight by both the interviewer and producers.
    What now? She didn't cast any doubt on anyone's testimony on the programme.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Not illustrated by a programme reputedly about the Disappeared.
    Not illustrated, because you've just made it up.

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    And you still cling to the claim that it was unbiased?
    Done with you on this subject, your own bias is clear and transparent.
    You've some special 'insights' on the go alright. :rolleyes:

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Ah, the 'I feel it in my water, so it must be true' angle rears it head again.
    No - there's ample evidence that the IRA still isn't owning up to murders/disappearances they're responsible for. As you saw on the programme, if you were paying attention.


  • #218
    grainnewhale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 392 ✭✭grainnewhale


    alastair wrote: »
    The Jean McConville story is not the same as the others however - it's subject to an ongoing murder investigation, post-discovery of the body, and a public representative has been linked to ordering that murder, by others within the IRA at the time.



    .

    The people of louth were well aware of these allegations, when they elected him to represent their views in the dail.
    This programme was just a continuation of british and irish goverments campaign since the 70's to tarnish the IRA, with the help of their lapdogs in the media.


  • #219
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    grainnewhale wrote: »
    The people of louth were well aware of these allegations, when they elected him to represent their views in the dail.
    This programme was just a continuation of british and irish goverments campaign since the 70's to tarnish the IRA, with the help of their lapdogs in the media.

    Tarnish the IRA? By making them murder these people and hide the bodies, lie for years about it, and then insult people's intelligence with fairytales about their lack of personal culpability? That's some devious cross-border conspiracy at play alright.


  • #220
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    alastair wrote: »
    Tarnish the IRA? By making them murder these people and hide the bodies, lie for years about it, and then insult people's intelligence with fairytales about their lack of personal culpability? That's some devious cross-border conspiracy at play alright.

    The thing is that Provos are either believed to have been Knights in shining armour or Demons from the deepest pit of hell; they were neither, they were a product of our time and particular circumstances- some were idealistic freedom fighters and great patriots, some were little better than neo-nazis. They were not the Borg anymore than the security forces were.


  • #221
    Manassas61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 313 ✭✭Manassas61


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    The thing is that Provos are either believed to have been Knights in shining armour or Demons from the deepest pit of hell; they were neither, they were a product of our time and particular circumstances- some were idealistic freedom fighters and great patriots, some were little better than neo-nazis. They were not the Borg anymore than the security forces were.
    And as such, they lost. Yet again.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    TOMASJ
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 656 ✭✭✭TOMASJ


    Manassas61 wrote: »
    And as such, they lost. Yet again.

    Do you think so, some would say a few very large bombs in english citys brought about the change in attitudes


  • #223
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    TOMASJ wrote: »
    Do you think so, some would say a few very large bombs in english citys brought about the change in attitudes

    And they would be wrong. The GFA didn't stem from English fatigue in the face of bombs, it stemmed from the belated realisation within the republican movement, that they were never going to achieve their goals with that strategy. The UK government were about as central to initiating the peace process as the Irish government were - they were peripheral players.


  • #224
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    The GFA didn't stem from English fatigue in the face of bombs, it stemmed from the belated realisation within the republican movement, that they were never going to achieve their goals with that strategy.

    Are we forgetting again that John Major was forced to quietly drop his disarmament demands in order to get a deal? He conceded defeat on the matter.
    Without supporting it, it is clear that the IRA coming off ceasefire to bomb English cities focused fatiqued hearts and minds.


  • #225
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Are we forgetting again that John Major was forced to quietly drop his disarmament demands in order to get a deal? He conceded defeat on the matter.
    Without supporting it, it is clear that the IRA coming off ceasefire to bomb English cities focused fatiqued hearts and minds.

    The nature of negotiations is that compromises are made - and unless you're claiming that the IRA held on to their arms, they were decommissioned as part of the agreement/deal. The bombing of English cities had nothing to do with the process - it was just more dead-ender distractions from the inevitable by the IRA.


  • #226
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    The nature of negotiations is that compromises are made - and unless you're claiming that the IRA held on to their arms, they were decommissioned as part of the agreement/deal. The bombing of English cities had nothing to do with the process - it was just more dead-ender distractions from the inevitable by the IRA.

    The IRA hold fast to their arms until a deal is done, and demonstrate that they are prepared to dramatically come off ceasefire if need be, the British PM drops his demand to get a deal in the face of the above, and you say the unfatiqued British where dictating the terms? Amazing analysis.


  • #227
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The IRA hold fast to their arms until a deal is done, and demonstrate that they are prepared to dramatically come off ceasefire if need be, the British PM drops his demand to get a deal in the face of the above, and you say the unfatiqued British where dictating the terms? Amazing analysis.

    The IRA did not hold fast to their arms - they gave them up as part of the process - the deal wasn't done until after the decommissioning process was underway. If you're seriously claiming that the choreography of decommissioning was a serious victory, built on bombing fatigue, I'd suggest that you're both ignoring the peripheral role that both governments played in the process, and the reality that UK bombs had nothing to do with the process. Feel free to subscribe to the myth of a victorious IRA if you like, but any impartial observer can see the desperate grasping for any crumbs of credibility for what they are.


  • #228
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    The IRA did not hold fast to their arms - they gave them up as part of the process - the deal wasn't done until after the decommissioning process was underway. If you're seriously claiming that the choreography of decommissioning was a serious victory, built on bombing fatigue, I'd suggest that your both ignoring the peripheral role that both governments played in the process, and the reality that UK bombs had nothing to do with the process. Feel free to subscribe to the myth of a victorious IRA if you like, but any impartial observer can see the desperate grasping for any crumbs of credibility for what they are.

    GFA signed on 10 April 1998
    IRA agrees a method of decommissioning August 2001.

    ^ That aside. What I am referring to is John Major's capitulation on his demand that the IRA disarm before the talks even began. Which doesn't suggest to me that he was dealing with an organisation that where defeated or disillusioned. The vanquished don't usually get to dictate their own terms do they?


  • #229
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    alastair wrote: »
    The IRA did not hold fast to their arms - they gave them up as part of the process - the deal wasn't done until after the decommissioning process was underway. If you're seriously claiming that the choreography of decommissioning was a serious victory, built on bombing fatigue, I'd suggest that you're both ignoring the peripheral role that both governments played in the process, and the reality that UK bombs had nothing to do with the process. Feel free to subscribe to the myth of a victorious IRA if you like, but any impartial observer can see the desperate grasping for any crumbs of credibility for what they are.

    Well its not that simple-a lot of people in the Provisional movement now hold weapons legally which would have been completely unthinkable before the GFA. They idea that they are completely unarmed now is false.


  • #230
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    GFA signed on 10 April 1998
    IRA agrees a method of decommissioning August 2001.

    ^ That aside. What I am referring to is John Major's capitulation on his demand that the IRA disarm before the talks even began. Which doesn't suggest to me that he was dealing with an organisation that where defeated or disillusioned. The vanquished don't usually get to dictate their own terms do they?

    The GFA incorporated a commitment to completion of decommissioning of weapons within two years. That SF played silly buggers on the mechanisms until the 11th hour doesn't remove from their commitment to disarm as part of the terms of the agreement.

    The vanquished didn't get to dictate their terms, they got to live up to the settlement they finally realised was the alternative to their failed campaign. Where are the IRA's weapons now? How's that plan to undermine local power-sharing arrangements worked out? What's actually remaining of the goals articulated by all those years of the armalite and the ballot box? I'd say there's been some shifting of terms alright!


  • #231
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    Well its not that simple-a lot of people in the Provisional movement now hold weapons legally which would have been completely unthinkable before the GFA. They idea that they are completely unarmed now is false.

    There's a bunch of farmers with guns too - but the point is that they're disbarred from holding them as offensive weapons. They had no choice in that.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    The GFA incorporated a commitment to completion of decommissioning of weapons within two years. That SF played silly buggers on the mechanisms until the 11th hour doesn't remove from their commitment to disarm as part of the terms of the agreement.

    The vanquished didn't get to dictate their terms, they got to live up to the settlement they finally realised was the alternative to their failed campaign. Where are the IRA's weapons now? How's that plan to undermine local power-sharing arrangements worked out? What's actually remaining of the goals articulated by all those years of the armalite and the ballot box? I'd say there's been some shifting of terms alright!

    Are you going to address John Major's capitulation pre the beginning of the process or not and the reasons why he dropped his demands?


    Re; the armalite and the ballot box, how many times have you heard any army going to war saying they are going to do anything other than win the day? The IRA got a deal that they are obviously happy with.


  • #233
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    alastair wrote: »
    The GFA incorporated a commitment to completion of decommissioning of weapons within two years. That SF played silly buggers on the mechanisms until the 11th hour doesn't remove from their commitment to disarm as part of the terms of the agreement.

    The vanquished didn't get to dictate their terms, they got to live up to the settlement they finally realised was the alternative to their failed campaign. Where are the IRA's weapons now? How's that plan to undermine local power-sharing arrangements worked out? What's actually remaining of the goals articulated by all those years of the armalite and the ballot box? I'd say there's been some shifting of terms alright!

    Posters that keep repeating over and over again that the Oglaigh na hEireann were defeated, are only trying to convince themselves.
    The situation IMO is that both sides came to the same conclusion that neither side could defeat the other militarily. That when the talks started. John Major decided to dig his heals in and throw his weight about till Canary Wharf, with his quick change of mind the talks began in earnest.


  • #234
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Are you going to address John Major's capitulation pre the beginning of the process or not and the reasons why he dropped his demands?


    Re; the armalite and the ballot box, how many times have you heard any army going to war saying they are going to do anything other than win the day? The IRA got a deal that they are obviously happy with.

    A deal that involved abandonment of their goals. Which reads pretty much like a failure by any reasonable definition. What did the British government lose? Nothing at all. Major/Blair ensured the IRA gave up their arms - quite the capitulation there.


  • #235
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    A deal that involved abandonment of their goals. Which reads pretty much like a failure by any reasonable definition. What did the British government lose? Nothing at all. Major/Blair ensured the IRA gave up their arms - quite the capitulation there.
    Are you going to address John Major's capitulation pre the beginning of the process or not and the reasons why he dropped his demands?

    I didn't think so.


  • #236
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Busted Flat. wrote: »
    Posters that keep repeating over and over again that the Oglaigh na hEireann were defeated, are only trying to convince themselves.
    The Irish Army were not engaged in a conflict to get defeated. If you mean that bunch of pretenders, the Provos, then while defeated might be too strong a term, it's certainly true that they failed in their goals. So more of a failure than losers.


  • #237
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I didn't think so.

    Because it's factually incorrect. The canary warf bomb happened after the supposed 'capitulation' of Major. The capitulation was actually just another instance of the range of compromises required for an agreement. The decommissioning mechanisms were there before the IRA decided to return to violence.


  • #238
    SoulandForm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭SoulandForm


    alastair wrote: »
    There's a bunch of farmers with guns too - but the point is that they're disbarred from holding them as offensive weapons. They had no choice in that.

    But we are talking about proper weapons and not just wimpy old shot guns; they were barred before from holding guns as either as offensive or defensive weapons....The British state doesnt allow Willie Frazer to hold a gun but it allows Pat McLaron now. You cant say this counts for nothing.


  • #239
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    SoulandForm wrote: »
    But we are talking about proper weapons and not just wimpy old shot guns; they were barred before from holding guns as either as offensive or defensive weapons....The British state doesnt allow Willie Frazer to hold a gun but it allows Pat McLaron now. You cant say this counts for nothing.

    Pistols are proper weapons alright. I wouldn't say that shotguns are wimpy in comparison, but defensive weapon licences are awarded on a case-by-case basis. I'd imagine Willy Frazer is seen as enough of a danger to himself without bringing a gun into the equation. I wouldn't read much more into it.


  • #240
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    Because it's factually incorrect. The canary warf bomb happened after the supposed 'capitulation' of Major. The capitulation was actually just another instance of the range of compromises required for an agreement. The decommissioning mechanisms were there before the IRA decided to return to violence.

    Do your research Alastair. Only took a quick google.


    16th May 1996, here's an article from the day after.
    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-05-17/news/1996138025_1_disarmament-northern-ireland-ira

    Canary Wharf happened on 9th Febuary 1996


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Do your research Alastair. Only took a quick google.


    16th May 1996, here's an article from the day after.
    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-05-17/news/1996138025_1_disarmament-northern-ireland-ira

    Canary Wharf happened on 9th Febuary 1996

    And? The twin-track mechanism for decommissioning was signed off by the governments in Nov of the previous year.


Advertisement