Gerry Adams exposed , his lies demolished at brothers rape trial

[Idris2002]

It means lacking significant meaning and as any good Hegelian knows insignificance can be quite significance, that is the lack of meaning in something can actually mean a great deal. Your comment tells us nothing on one level but on another it says a lot about the kind of analysis that uses majority and minority as it's operative concepts.

For Fucks Fucking Sake, it's a post on a message board, not a peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.

 

[revol68]

For Fucks Fucking Sake, it's a post on a message board, not a peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.

Don't try and Pickman me, you cunt!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Key point: the relationship between Westminster and Stormont was not the same as the federal relationship between Washington DC and the southern states.

True. The US federal govt could use the constitution to insist that the states obey its decisions. In that sense, what the federal govt can and cannot insist on is clearly delineated in the US. In the UK, there is no such clarity, but Stormont was subordinate to Westminster. In fact, it was subordinate in ways that the US states are not, as the UK govt had the power to abolish Stormont.

So what was it about the difference between the two that made a US-style appeal above the heads of the local authorities impossible?

 

[Idris2002]

True. The US federal govt could use the constitution to insist that the states obey its decisions. In that sense, what the federal govt can and cannot insist on is clearly delineated in the US. In the UK, there is no such clarity, but Stormont was subordinate to Westminster. In fact, it was subordinate in ways that the US states are not, as the UK govt had the power to abolish Stormont.

So what was it about the difference between the two that made a US-style appeal above the heads of the local authorities impossible?

The fact that they were in (for them) an unprecedented situation and had no clear idea of how to deal with it. Which for a time allowed HM Forces to use methods previously tried in Kenya and Cyprus.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The fact that they were in (for them) an unprecedented situation and had no clear idea of how to deal with it. Which for a time allowed HM Forces to use methods previously tried in Kenya and Cyprus.

Ok, that makes sense. So the UK govt and its forces very quickly themselves became part of the problem in a way that the US federal govt and forces had not in the US civil rights movement.

 

[Buckaroo]

To channel the vengeful spirit of Pickman's model

He's not even dead yet

Don't try and Pickman me, you cunt!

and they've made him a verb.

 

[Joe Reilly]

both Dolours Price and Brendan Hughes have directly implicated and named Adams as the individual who ordered that Jean McConville be shot and buried in secret . Who personally conceived and implemented that rotten strategy . Both those people were regarded even by their enemies as people of sincere personal integrity and simply cannot be dismissed as liars on this issue.

Well, maybe the finger-pointing would have carried greater conviction if they had precisely identified the chain of command downwards. But that wouldn't do at all would it? So it is not 'the whole truth and nothing but' is it?

Nothing like.

And the fact that Adams is the only one put in the frame for what the family are now describing as 'a war crime' (which may give pause for thought in some quarters) demonstrates their motivation was political malice pure and simple. Which maybe perfectly understandable from their standpoint.

But it also follows, that in any court, once a witness is attached to anything like a personal vendetta the weight given to their evidence is almost always instantly devalued, and that includes as is the case here, in the court of public opinion.

So the editorials can fulminate all they want - if this is all you've got - in a couple of months time for good or ill, the public may conclude the entire 'anti-SF family' dissidents included, swung wildly or otherwise, but in any event, missed.

To slightly paraphrase a German philosopher 'what dosen't destroy can indeed strengthen'.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ok, that makes sense. So the UK govt and its forces very quickly themselves became part of the problem in a way that the US federal govt and forces had not in the US civil rights movement.

To stretch the comparison, the loyalist paramilitaries of the 1960s, killing uppity Catholics to keep the Catholic community subdued, were like the KKK. So a closer equivalent situation in the US would have been federal troops coming in to protect black people from lynching, but then turning on black people who are demonstrating, and hanging around to help the local authorities enforce certain aspects of segregation, some among the federal troops even cooperating secretly with the KKK, although officially they still remain steadfastly opposed to them.

Here, the comparison breaks down, admittedly, as the nationalist community in NI did not want to be part of the UK anyway, so when uk forces arrive and are hostile, they are easily identified as the enemy. I can understand why people wanted to take up arms to defend their communities. And with the British army there as the enemy too, what other solution could there be except the expulsion of the British?

But now we've slipped into fantasy-land, perhaps without realising it: you think you can overthrow the powerful majority? How? The leadership of the IRA seized an opportunity to take control of the nationalist community and start a war in their name - an unwinnable war, the point of which was not so much the winning as the doing, and what doing it gave you?

At least ETA, in their fight against Franco, knew that there were many around Spain who shared their belief that the Franco regime was illegitimate. That wasn't the case with the UK, not in the same way. Even killing Thatcher would not have been the same as killing Carrero Blanco. The IRA's fight was from the start as futile as the fight of those in ETA who continued their campaign after Franco was gone - never going to achieve any of its stated larger political aims, and delaying the achievement of other civil rights aims, such as a Basque police force to replace the hated Guardia Civil, which still hasn't totally been achieved.

I would argue that ETA's activities in the late 70s/1980s delayed reforms in the Basque Country that would have come much more quickly without ETA. ETA opposed the socialist govt of the 1980s, as the IRA opposed the Labour govt of the 1970s. In both cases, the paramilitaries provoked the governments into a reaction against them. That does look to me like a deliberate attempt to prolong the conflict for the sake of prolonging it. I'm not excusing what Spain/Britain did, btw - the reactions of both Gonzalez and Wilson/Callaghan were appalling and also counterproductive (and anti-democratic). That can be a tactic - to provoke the state into terrible anti-democratic actions that will see support for you grow - but I'm struggling to think of an example from history of that tactic working, tbh, except in a non-violent setting: the civil disobedience tactic of the movements led by Gandhi or Martin Luther King. If you use violence to provoke the response, you just make it politically impossible for the govt to compromise with you.

 

[Casually Red]

[quote="Joe Reilly, post: 12691502, member: 4046"

Well, maybe the finger-pointing would have carried greater conviction if they had precisely identified the chain of command downwards. But that wouldn't do at all would it? So it is not 'the whole truth and nothing but' is it?

Nothing like.

And the fact that Adams is the only one put in the frame for what the family are now describing as 'a war crime' (which may give pause for thought in some quarters) demonstrates their motivation was political malice pure and simple. Which maybe perfectly understandable from their standpoint.

political malice...Joe..for fucks sake...both those people died well before their time as every one knows absolutely tortured souls. They did the fucking dirty work and paid the moral price . Pull your head of Adams arse for fucks sake. A comment like that is bad as that arsehole calling them liars .

But it also follows, that in any court, once a witness is attached to anything like a personal vendetta the weight given to their evidence is almost always instantly devalued, and that includes as is the case here, in the court of public opinion.

Ok joe, Dolours price and brandan hughes were vindictive inveterate liars and Gerry Adams is a vitcim. Are you happy with that ? .Because anywhere outisde an ard conhairle meeting itd make you a fucking laughing stock

So the editorials can fulminate all they want - if

this is all you've got - in a couple of months time for good or ill, the public may conclude the entire 'anti-SF family' dissidents included, swung wildly or otherwise, but in any event, missed.

I see, its a dissident plot. from beyond the grave too . Jesus .

To slightly paraphrase a German philosopher 'what dosen't destroy can indeed strengthen'.

strengthen...you cant be more out of touch. Seriously .

good man. You follow that rotten caravan of rats, war criminals, touts and pedo protectors to the end of the earth . Its your own personal and personal and political reputation your putting on the line for those lowlifes and beaten dockets . Demonise and criminalise the likes of Brendan Hughes and Dolours Price as immoral liars to defend a fucking multi millionaire prodigy of Tony Blairs . Whatever your covering yourself in there certainly isnt glory and outside the corridors of stormont theres absolutely nobody in Ireland wholl thank you for your mudslinging on that tramps behalf.
The street has seen through this shit long ago . Thats why Adams legged it out of west belfast .

no offence man but you sound like one of those twenty year old newbies who think the dissidents are the enemy . Try and remember you are talking about lifelong republicans last will and testaments, their word being put on the line . Thats what your dismissing as some sort of shitty political manouvre .

ive a few drinks taken and its only out of respect for your anti fascist record i dont say more . What i will say though is this apologia is a fucking embarassment to read .

 

[Casually Red]

[quote="revol68, post: 12690706, member:

Here lies the problem for honest republicans, you accept a settlement short of a United Ireland and as such have to face up to the futility of the armed struggle

wrong, seriously wrong

and how it only further entrenched sectarianism

even wronger..tell us again what the unionist response to civil rights was before the provos were even invented...it was all out pogrom, murder and burning at the provocative sight of one man one vote, equal British citizenship . Sectarianism was the norm . No catholics need apply signs were openly displayed on shop and business windows before anyone heard of the provos . This leftist shit talk that the provos stopped the great socialist utopia of class unity evolving was shit talk then and shit talk now .Entrenching further my arse . More peacelines were built after the troubles than during it . Another one went up just this weekend near short strand . Armed struggle didnt put any of those up . British rule did . And still is .

And its British rule which has and is entrenching sectarianism . You want to keep it . You just need a scapegoat to blame on its rottenness . Fourth green field my arse . Its imperialism, and thats what imperialism does everywhere it goes, not the resistance to it .

Oh but we are white...fuck off

Bullshit .

and actually set back any move towards a United Ireland

balls..shit talk..catch a grip of yourself John Hume

or be a mental irredentist nationalist frothing at the mouth over a fourth green field and how everyone is a dupe of Brit imperialism.

righto..one world dog on a string ballsology from a man who admits his in depth experience of Irish republicanism amounted to wearing a celtic badge to school when he was 13 . Before he adopted an alternative badge of identity ...unionist anarchism..christ on a bike . Both of which are just that, badges of identity as opposed to any type of thought out political position or political logic .

Dishonest republicans pretend the armed struggle was really just an extension of the civil rights movement and we had 30 years of violence in able for catholics to have equal rights.

thats completely true, civil rights could have been had by the early 70s with hardly a shot fired, but socialists have their own brand of dishonesty too . Both of which are an insult to peoples intelligence . The British state in Ireland is irredeemable . Its a boil that guarantees a non stop flow of sectarian pus . Any socialist worthy of the name would be demanding and end to its existence, not harping about some pish were the most reactionary section of europes working class could be redeemed under imperialist rule if everyone was happy with the border and just forgot about it . Its pish .
British rule in Ireland is imperialism, its colonialism . Socilaism cannot ever be constructed under an imperialist framework were Irish democracy is a laughing stock and the ownership of Ireland is denied to the people of Ireland by a foreign imperialist power. A fucking monarchy . Using sectarian gerrymandering as a means to claim our national territory and usurp our sovereignty . Socialism under imperialism and sectarianism and without our sovereignty and ownership of our own land is a fucking pipe dream, a complete nonsense .

Might as well roll out Jimmy young to give us a lecture with Barry fucking McGuigan singing danny boy in the background . Pish and bollocks.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's a bit depressing that you think revol has to be a 'unionist' anarchist. Reminds me of the quuestion asked of atheists - 'but are you a protestant atheist or a catholic atheist.'

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Do.you think the british govt wants ni? I think they'd have given it up ages ago if they could. Which means that the problem isn't british imperialist thinking- it's the unionist majority in ni.

 

[revol68]

Like I said Casually Red, the other option is to remain faithful to physical force republicanism and decry everyone for being a stooge of British imperialism. Of course the imperialist nature of the "occupation" is never properly explained, mostly because it is fantasy and rhetoric. NI is a tax sink to the UK, if they could ditch it tomorrow they would, unlucky for them they can't. When Republican's come to terms with the fact the British presence in the 6 counties is primarily the majority of those who identify as British they might get closer to realising their sacred United Ireland. The dissidents with their armed antics have no strategy whatsoever, they have even less of an analysis and that's why despite general cynicism around the Shinners most republicans stick with them over the dizzies. That is they choose cynical lying bastards over politically stunted mentalists with guns.

 

[likesfish]

Ni It seemed like a good idea in the 1920s ended up being a nightmare
But hey ho everyone involved in setting it up was safely in their grave before it blew up so a triumph of British governence

 

[Pickman's model]

Ni It seemed like a good idea in the 1920s ended up being a nightmare
But hey ho everyone involved in setting it up was safely in their grave before it blew up so a triumph of British governence

no it didn't.

 

[Pickman's model]

The leadership of the IRA seized an opportunity to take control of the nationalist community and start a war in their name - an unwinnable war, the point of which was not so much the winning as the doing, and what doing it gave you?

i don't think you've really got to grips with the dynamics of the conflict in which - it may surprise you to learn - the nationalists were active participants.

 

[framed]

Is it cold in his shadow? – An Appreciation of Vol. Brendan Hughes

TAL Blog on The Dark and those who seek to denigrate his contribution to republicanism in order to perpetuate the myth that no peaceful republican alternative to the strategy of the SF leadership is possible.

 

[Buckaroo]

Is it cold in his shadow? – An Appreciation of Vol. Brendan Hughes

TAL Blog on The Dark and those who seek to denigrate his contribution to republicanism in order to perpetuate the myth that no peaceful republican alternative to the strategy of the SF leadership is possible.

Important stuff this. Nice one.

 

[Casually Red]

That's a bit depressing that you think revol has to be a 'unionist' anarchist. Reminds me of the quuestion asked of atheists - 'but are you a protestant atheist or a catholic atheist.'

he is, there are actually unionist anarchists in the north . They call themselves Organise, everyone else calls them Orangise .

 

[Casually Red]

Like I said Casually Red, the other option is to remain faithful to physical force republicanism and decry everyone for being a stooge of British imperialism. Of course the imperialist nature of the "occupation" is never properly explained, mostly because it is fantasy and rhetoric. NI is a tax sink to the UK, if they could ditch it tomorrow they would, unlucky for them they can't. When Republican's come to terms with the fact the British presence in the 6 counties is primarily the majority of those who identify as British they might get closer to realising their sacred United Ireland. The dissidents with their armed antics have no strategy whatsoever, they have even less of an analysis and that's why despite general cynicism around the Shinners most republicans stick with them over the dizzies. That is they choose cynical lying bastards over politically stunted mentalists with guns.

like i said, a chronic inveterate unionist to the backbone . He almost said white mans burden there . There is no imperialism in Ireland and no occupation. You could cut and paste that quote and attribute it to pretty much any establishment party or cabinet mouthpiece.

Hes a unionist.

 

[Casually Red]

Do.you think the british govt wants ni? I think they'd have given it up ages ago if they could. Which means that the problem isn't british imperialist thinking- it's the unionist majority in ni.

rubbish. White mans burden. Youll be telling us next there was just rotten apples and no state run death squads, no collusion at the highest level, no policy to go into the gutter and beyond to preserve the union and no strategic interest in the island right next door. Like saying France has no strategic interest in what happens in Belgium. That poor Britain was like some poor Bertie wooster who inherited this sick dog he couldnt bear to put down and had to look after .
Fantasy stuff .

 

[Casually Red]

anyways today sinn fein distinguished themselves yet again by participating in the poppy ballsology at Belfast city hall. Mairtin OMullior represented the party on this occasion, a reboot of Tom Hartleys ...remember him..previous unfortunate attempt to make honouring imperialist armed forces part of the Irish tradition . Martin McGuinness commended his admirable leadership

 

[revol68]

If it was imperialism and the Brits were out to totally smash the IRA leadership they could have. Considering the infiltration of the IRA and the obvious evidence of collusion you should wonder why so few actual IRA members were killed during the troubles, why were their details passed on more often to loyalists. It's because the Brits were looking a settlement and recognised that the IRA leadership could be eventually brought to the table. Contrast that with the Israeli states actions in Palestine where it actively assassinates palestinian leaders and it might tell you something of how desperate the Brits were to hold onto a shitty little province that was put out to pasture post partition and only took on significance when the rotten unionist establishments years of misrule and discrimination blew up in it's face.

And making the obvious fact that NI is a big drain on the British states resources whilst offering no real incentive to maintain it in the union, is not white mans burden, and whilst anti Irish racism was a large factor in the past it can't be said to be one now. The Brits are instead stuck with the bitter aftertaste of their colonial past.

 

[Casually Red]

[quote="revol68, post: 12696776, member:

If it was imperialism and the Brits were out to totally smash the IRA leadership they could have.

strawman..what is this shit about..they didnt obliterate it in 1919 21 either. From the first sentence your position ...unionist..is exposed as utterly clueless. Why would they smash the very people theyd done a deal in secret with. The next people might not.

Considering the infiltration of the IRA and the obvious evidence of collusion you should wonder why so few actual IRA members were killed during the troubles, why were their details passed on more often to loyalists. It's because the Brits were looking a settlement and recognised that the IRA leadership could be eventually brought to the table.

because the british intelligence services directing the death squads actively encouraged loyalists more often than not to kill innocent catholics , often persuading them their targets were indeed IRA members when they werent . Its exactly how Brian Nelson was caught, when his UDA colleagues plastered the shankill road with thousands of montages and files hed supplied them with and phoned the media to come see, to prove their intelligence was top army grade . When it was mostly innocent people . Nelson selected their targets on his superiors directions . The IRA couldnt be intimidated into lowering its aims , the wider community could . And the IRA also didnt know its leadership had already abandoned its aims and shafted them behind closed doors , so it would have been a complete waste of time and bullets .

Contrast that with the Israeli states actions in Palestine where it actively assassinates palestinian leaders and it might tell you something of how desperate the Brits were to hold onto a shitty little province that was put out to pasture post partition and only took on significance when the rotten unionist establishments years of misrule and discrimination blew up in it's face.

palestinian leaders who wont recognise the zionist entities legitimacy...next

And making the obvious fact that NI is a big drain on the British states resources whilst offering no real incentive to maintain it in the union, is not white mans burden, and whilst anti Irish racism was a large factor in the past it can't be said to be one now. The Brits are instead stuck with the bitter aftertaste of their colonial past.

white mans burden again, your a unionist, ergo there can be no imperialism in Ireland . Sinn Fein leaders kissing the queens hole, honouring the British armies imperial exploits and calling on the nationalist population to join the renamed RUC and tout on their republican neighbours doesnt taste at all bitter from an imperialist point of view. Victory tastes sweet indeed.[/quote]

 

[revol68]

Saying that the British role in Northern Ireland can't be explained by imperialism doesn't make you a unionist you utter tit.

Is Anthony McIntyre a unionist?

It seems to me that republicans often ignored the evidence available and in the process managed to get the causal factor in the British state presence back to front: they saw unionism as being held in place by Britain rather than seeing Britain as being held in place in Ireland by unionism. British imperialism as it is often termed in republican discourse can manage quite easily without any territorial acquisition in Ireland. Few would argue that British strategic interests are in any way threatened by the political ensemble that has been constructed in the twenty six counties of Ireland. Britain could safely withdraw in the morning from the North secure in the knowledge that Sinn Fein and the DUP would pose the same level of threat to British strategic interests as is posed by Fine Gael and Labour in the South.

 

[revol68]

basically, instead of merely insisting imperialism is what keeps the British state in the North, why don't you explain it, lay out for all us stooges what the UK state and ruling classes gain from maintaining the Union? Furthermore if the 6 counties are worth having how come the South has no interest in reclaiming them?

 

[toggle]

the imperial pride thing? I'ts not openly discussed in the way it was during the HR debate period, but ti's still there. If the British state is seen to be backing away from that place they called theirs/place they refused to leave/white mans burden then ti's a national embarrassment. one less bit of evidence for the 'wish we still ruled the waves' brigade?

 

[revol68]

the imperial pride thing? I'ts not openly discussed in the way it was during the HR debate period, but ti's still there. If the British state is seen to be backing away from that place they called theirs/place they refused to leave/white mans burden then ti's a national embarrassment. one less bit of evidence for the 'wish we still ruled the waves' brigade?

maybe as a residue in some of the older tory types.

after the free state was formed Britain's pride was already bruised, holding onto the fourth field was little more than an embarrassing reminder, not exactly something to boast or take pride in.

furthermore that would still not make it imperialism, imperialism isn't just about countries conquering other countries, it's a specific analysis based on the interests of national capitals, not the whims of pseudo feudal old Tory lords.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

i don't think you've really got to grips with the dynamics of the conflict in which - it may surprise you to learn - the nationalists were active participants.

How do you find your debating style works for you, PM? Each time it is 'you're an idiot who doesn't understand anything'...

In this case, I think I do understand something of the dynamics of the paramilitaries on both sides. They purported to represent their side and its people, and in the case of the IRA at least, also saw themselves as a de facto state authority, meting out 'community justice'. Both sets of paramilitaries also acted like bullying gangsters towards their own sides, extorting money from local businesses to fund their campaigns. In imposing this discipline, they were explicitly excluding any alternative perspective: 'either you are with us or you are against us, there is no third option'.

 

[Pickman's model]

How do you find your debating style works for you, PM? Each time it is 'you're an idiot who doesn't understand anything'...

In this case, I think I do understand something of the dynamics of the paramilitaries on both sides. They purported to represent their side and its people, and in the case of the IRA at least, also saw themselves as a de facto state authority, meting out 'community justice'. Both sets of paramilitaries also acted like bullying gangsters towards their own sides, extorting money from local businesses to fund their campaigns. In imposing this discipline, they were explicitly excluding any alternative perspective: 'either you are with us or you are against us, there is no third option'.

that is because now and again i find myself dealing with an idiot. i said i didn't think you understood the dynamics of the conflict, you replied that you think you understand something of the dynamics of the paramilitaries. but not, i note, the dynamics of the conflict.