What evidence of Gerry Adams' IRA membership do people need?

Seaneh · 03-05-2014 02:40AM

alastair wrote: »

A colour party is a representation of a (para)military organisation. That's the intent.

Anything to back that up? Because, to be honest, you're pulling that squarely out of the orifice most of your posts in this thread read like they are coming from.

Phoebas · 03-05-2014 02:43AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Just to illustrate something that is ridiculously obvious to those without the cognitive ability to figure it out for themselves, here's the difference between members of an illegal organisation at a funeral and members of a colour party at a funeral, note the difference in attire and facial coverings (or lack thereof).

IRA members at a funeral:

Gerry Adams at a funeral:

I hope this helps you get over your mental block.

(Ignoring the insults - I don't understand what you think they add), the photo posted earlier (is it the same funeral?) of Adams in a 'colour party' includes confirmed IRA members in the same party.
Nobody is saying that membership of a colour party == membership of the IRA; only that it is an indication in that direction.

Crooked Jack · 03-05-2014 02:44AM

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

This is not evidence of anything other than Adams being a republican. Many people have been in colour parties over the years, this does not mean that they were in the IRA (in fact most of the time it means they are not!)

They went on behalf of the republican movement. Adams presumably went as a rep of Sinn Féin and the younger northern leadersip. Sean Mac Stiofáin was annoyed at the time (as he says in his book) that "non military" people were included.

I have a couple of coloumns for An Phoblacht. And have sold the damn thing (nowadays you can buy it in every newsagent around the country). You should also be aware that many people wrote under the pseudonym "Brownie" in APRN and articles were a collaborative effort from those in jail.(including Brendan Hughes and others in "Cage 11" in Long Kesh)

So if I accuse you of being something and you dont sue me it means its true?

All of whom hated Adams and are/were against the peace process.

Finally I'll ask, does anyone care if he was or not?

Exactly. The question isnt if Adams was or wasnt in the IRA, the question is who cares and what difference does it make?

Seaneh · 03-05-2014 02:47AM

By the way, the insinuation that my uncle, a play-write, social advocate, respected member of the local community and management level asset at a multi-billion euro international communications company, was a member of an Illegal organisation or that his friends from the local branch of a political party were members of an illegal organisation, is more than a little insulting to his memory and his legacy and I'd greatly appreciate if both of you would apologize for your idiotic attempts to further your failed argument.

Phoebas · 03-05-2014 02:54AM

Seaneh wrote: »

By the way, the insinuation that my uncle, a play-write, social advocate, respected member of the local community and management level asset at a multi-billion euro international communications company, was a member of an Illegal organisation or that his friends from the local branch of a political party were members of an illegal organisation, is more than a little insulting to his memory and his legacy and I'd greatly appreciate if both of you would apologize for your idiotic attempts to further your failed argument.

I think you're mistaking an indication - that may, or not, be true with an insinuation.

I don't think anyone is doubting your word that your uncle wasn't a terrorist - just that wearing the garb often associated with a terrorist organisation at a republican funeral might be an indicator that he was a member of the terrorist organisation.

Seaneh · 03-05-2014 02:55AM

Phoebas wrote: »

Nobody is saying that membership of a colour party == membership of the IRA; only that it is an indication in that direction.

Nobody is offering any evidence of this being reality beyond their own say so.
A man who has been involved in them himself and I myself have offered our personal knowledge to the contrary.
We can't prove a negative, if you're going to continue to insist that partaking in a funeral colour party implies membership of an illegal paramilitary organisation then the ownness is on you to prove it.

Pointing out that some members of a specific colour party were members of an illegal organisation does not imply any of the following:
That all members of that specific colour party were also members of illegal organisations
That members of all colour parties are likely members of illegal organisations
That membership of a colour party is an indication of possible membership of an illegal organisation.
It only proves that some members of a specific colour party were members of an illegal organisation.

alastair · 03-05-2014 02:56AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Yup, definitely looks like he's dressed as a member of a military organisation.

Blazer, shirt, tie, beret... Next time I see a black rock boy in a beret I'll make sure to be cautious around him.

:rolleyes:

The funeral is of IRA man Michael Kane - killed by his own bomb. Colour party includes Martin Meehan; convicted member of the IRA, and Paddy McAdorey 3rd battalion PIRA member. Also included is Gerry Adams - stated by a number of IRA members, to have been a member of the IRA. So - yeah the evidence is entirely down to headwear fashion choices. :rolleyes:

Seaneh · 03-05-2014 02:59AM

alastair wrote: »

The funeral is of IRA man Michael Kane - killed by his own bomb. Colour party includes Martin Meehan; convicted member of the IRA, and Paddy McAdorey 3rd battalion PIRA member. Also included is Gerry Adams - stated by a number of IRA members, to have been a member of the IRA. So - yeah the evidence is entirely down to headwear fashion choices. :rolleyes:

Members of the republican movement, some of whom were members of the IRA, involved in the colour party at the funeral of another member of the Republican movement who was a member of the IRA.

That's all the photo you have posted shows, nothing more, nothing less.

alastair · 03-05-2014 03:00AM

Seaneh wrote: »

By the way, the insinuation that my uncle, a play-write, social advocate, respected member of the local community and management level asset at a multi-billion euro international communications company, was a member of an Illegal organisation or that his friends from the local branch of a political party were members of an illegal organisation, is more than a little insulting to his memory and his legacy and I'd greatly appreciate if both of you would apologize for your idiotic attempts to further your failed argument.

Was he wearing paramilitary garb at a funeral? The point is that the wearing of such garb places them in one of two positions - proxy representation of said illegal organisation (the idiot camp) or actual membership of an illegal organisation ( the culpable). But you can't be held accountable for your friends, so it's no reflection on anyone but those who chose to wear the garb.

alastair · 03-05-2014 03:01AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Members of the republican movement, some of whom were members of the IRA, involved in the colour party at the funeral of another member of the Republican movement who was a member of the IRA.

That's all the photo you have posted shows, nothing more, nothing less.

Well - we're making progress. Because a moment ago you claimed it wasn't a photo of IRA men at a funeral, and that it was nonsensical to suggest IRA men would show their faces in colour party uniforms.

Seaneh · 03-05-2014 03:03AM

alastair wrote: »

Was he wearing paramilitary garb at a funeral? The point is that the wearing of ugh garden places in in one of two positions - proxy representation of said illegal organisation (the idiot camp) or actual membership of an illegal organisation ( the culpable). But you can't be held accountable for your friends, so it's no reflection on anyone but those who chose to wear the garb.

That is not, as I have pointed out, "garb" associated with membership of the IRA. The IRA wear military fatigues, not blazers, shirts and ties. The only thing in that outfit with even remote military connections if the beret.

Seaneh · 03-05-2014 03:04AM

alastair wrote: »

Well - we're making progress. Because a moment ago you claimed it wasn't a photo of IRA men at a funeral, and that it was nonsensical to suggest IRA men would show their faces in colour party uniforms.

No, never claimed anything of the sort, please quote where you got that from?
I said that if being a member of a colour party was indicative of membership of the IRA, no members of the IRA would take part in a colour party.

alastair · 03-05-2014 03:08AM

Seaneh wrote: »

That is not, as I have pointed out, "garb" associated with membership of the IRA. The IRA wear military fatigues, not blazers, shirts and ties. The only thing in that outfit with even remote military connections if the beret.

It's a uniform, of a colour party - which by definition, is a (para)military representation. I'm pretty sure the only time an active service IRA member wore fatigues was for press purposes or funerals and other propaganda purses. Fatigues aren't much use in planting bombs or urban shootings.

Phoebas · 03-05-2014 03:09AM

Seaneh wrote: »

No, never claimed anything of the sort, please quote where you got that from?

Ah, for God's sake Seaneh - are ye just playing games now?

Seaneh wrote: »

Do you think people would march in colours so openly if it was such an obvious indicator of membership of an illegal organisation?
Don't be so daft.

Seaneh · 03-05-2014 03:09AM

alastair wrote: »

It's a uniform, of a colour party - which by definition, is a (para)military representation. I

That's your definition, which you are asserting as fact without any source, care to back that up?

alastair · 03-05-2014 03:13AM

Seaneh wrote: »

No, never claimed anything of the sort, please quote where you got that from

here's the difference between members of an illegal organisation at a funeral and members of a colour party at a funeral, note the difference in attire and facial coverings (or lack thereof).

Seaneh wrote: »

I said that if being a member of a colour party was indicative of membership of the IRA, no members of the IRA would take part in a colour party.

A colour party is a representation of the IRA. That's the point of it.

alastair · 03-05-2014 03:13AM

Seaneh wrote: »

That's your definition, which you are asserting as fact without any source, care to back that up?

It's the very definition of a colour party!

Seaneh · 03-05-2014 03:17AM

Phoebas wrote: »

Ah, for God's sake Seaneh - are ye just playing games now?

So What I said was people wouldn't partake in a colour party if it was such a clear indication of membership of an illegal organisation.

What you you claim I said was it would be "nonsensical to suggest IRA men would show their faces in colour party uniforms".

Now, either you are so tied up in your own will to read something I never wrote, or you genuinely can't tell the difference between what I said and what you interrupted and to be frank, there comes a time when that stops being my problem.

See, I don't know what to tell you... Can you really not tell the difference between what I actually said and what you claim I said?

Really?

Seaneh · 03-05-2014 03:21AM

alastair wrote: »

It's the very definition of a colour party!

Where?
From who?

Should be easy for you to back up.

The brownies and scouts have colour parties, are the brownies and scouts a para-military organisation?

Kermit.de.frog · 03-05-2014 03:23AM

What evidence of Gerry Adams' IRA membership do people need?

Can we at least have a membership card?

alastair · 03-05-2014 03:23AM

Seaneh wrote: »

So What I said was people wouldn't partake in a colour party if it was such a clear indication of membership of an illegal organisation.

What you you claim I said was it would be "nonsensical to suggest IRA men would show their faces in colour party uniforms".

Now, either you are so tied up in your own will to read something I never wrote, or you genuinely can't tell the difference between what I said and what you interrupted and to be frank, there comes a time when that stops being my problem.

See, I don't know what to tell you... Can you really not tell the difference between what I actually said and what you claim I said?

Really?

Dissembling.

Your claim was that IRA men would not wear colour party garb, on account of the risks of identification. When it's shown that this is not actually the case, you furiously look for some pedantry to squirm out of that patently disproven scenario. You pretend that a colour party is not universally understood to be a representation of a (para)military organisation, a pretence at odds with a reality that everyone can see for themselves.

alastair · 03-05-2014 03:29AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Where?
From who?

Should be easy for you to back up.

The brownies and scouts have colour parties, are the brownies and scouts a para-military organisation?

The attributes of their (scouts and brownies) military heritage are indeed reflected in the ranks, uniforms, and colours (including colour parties). But then SF are not anything to do with Baden Powell, so you don't have to look too far to see which (para)military organisation their colours refer to.

Phoebas · 03-05-2014 03:29AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Now, either you are so tied up in your own will to read something I never wrote, or you genuinely can't tell the difference between what I said and what you interrupted and to be frank, there comes a time when that stops being my problem.

I don't think you'll ever see it as your problem.
I'll leave it there with my first post in the thread.

Phoebas wrote: »

There isn't a person in the country who doesn't believe Adams wasn't in the IRA. Even the people who deny ^^ it do it in a playful way, with the most unbelievable arguments that most normal people would immediately dismiss.

Seaneh · 03-05-2014 03:30AM

alastair wrote: »

Dissembling.

Your claim was that IRA men would not wear colour party garb, on account of the risks of identification.

Nope. Again, I never said any such thing. I very clearly said that if being a member of a colour party was a clear indication of membership of an illegal organisation, no member of an illegal organisation would take party in a colour party because it would make them easily identifiable.
These people went to massive effort to hide their memberships in these organisations for fear of arrest, they'd hardly go wandering down the road shouting "here I am, come get me" if it was that obvious.

Neither of you, nor the OP has offered anything to back up your assertation that membership of a colour party at a funeral is an indicator of membership of the IRA (or any illegal organisation) other than your own say so and the fact that some members of a specific colour party also happened to be members of the IRA.

Wearing colours and taking part in a colour party indicates nothing other than the fact that you were the member of a colour party.

alastair · 03-05-2014 03:35AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Nope. Again, I never said any such thing. I very clearly said that if being a member of a colour party was a clear indication of membership of an illegal organisation, no member of an illegal organisation would take party in a colour party because it would make them easily identifiable.
These people went to massive effort to hide their memberships in these organisations for fear of arrest, they'd hardly go wandering down the road shouting "here I am, come get me" if it was that obvious.

Except that you've been proven wrong. Colour parties are representations of the Provos, if you're talking the SF shade of colour party, and amongst the wanna-be idiots, actual IRA members do comprise some of those colour parties. I've been very clear that there's two elements in colour parties - a fact that doesn't escape the police either.

alastair · 03-05-2014 03:38AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Wearing colours and taking part in a colour party indicates nothing other than the fact that you were the member of a colour party.

If you conveniently ignore the significance of the colour party - just as wearing a sheet over your head out with a burning cross, while in the company of some chums doesn't indicate anything more than you're taking the night air.

Seaneh · 03-05-2014 03:39AM

alastair wrote: »

Except that you've been proven wrong. Colour parties are representations of the Provos, if your talking the SF shade of colour party, and amongst the wanna-be idiots, actual IRA members do comprise some of those colour parties. I've been very clear that there's two elements in colour parties - a fact that doesn't escape the police either.

Again, nothing to back up your claims here but your own say so.

Pardon me if I fail to take your word as bond.

alastair · 03-05-2014 03:40AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Again, nothing to back up your claims here but your own say so.

Pardon me if I fail to take your word as bond.

You don't have to take my word for it - check out the details of that colour party for yourself.

Seaneh · 03-05-2014 03:45AM

alastair wrote: »

You don't have to take my word for it - check out the details of that colour party for yourself.

You're the one making assertions and claiming things to be fact, it's your job to back them up.
That's how this works. You make a claim, you back it up.

alastair · 03-05-2014 03:50AM

Seaneh wrote: »

You're the one making assertions and claiming things to be fact, it's your job to back them up.
That's how this works. You make a claim, you back it up.

I posted the details of the specific IRA members in the colour party - that's more than enough back-up.

What evidence of Gerry Adams' IRA membership do people need?

Comments