toggle
wobbly
Confession and Catholicism.
there were loyalists interviewed as well
Confession and Catholicism.
toggle said:there were loyalists interviewed as well
If the peace process does look in danger I am sure Tony Blair the world's second favourite peace ambassador(after Henry Kissinger) will ride in on his white charger and re-charm all antagonists again.
the 'death bed reconciliation' nonsense put about by SF after his death .
Guilty as a guilty thing but probably going to walk should have been a proper amnesty all round rather than this horrible farce doubt theres much reliable evidence from the seventies any of the rifles used in ballymurphy are in the hands of a 14 year old in serria leonie
Well loads of slrs were shipped to serria leone its where the rifles used for bloody sunday turned up
i do recall being told that the subjects were extraordinarily candid about their roles in events. the involvement of boston college led people to trust them and I believe moloney was also a known quantity, he was considered to be someone who would do a good job of writing up their stories. but the interviewees were led to believe that the non disclosure agreement was something far more solid than it actually was. I think they were given the impression that the agreement would be legally binding, that courts would uphold it. which should IMO, never have happened.
In some ways, if a project like that was going to happen, it should have been embargoed for a number of years, get the information for future generations of historians, but accept it won't be used until all the major players of that period were dead. not just the interviewee. which would be frustrating for the people involved, but would have been a lot more sensible and ethical. my reasoning for this is that it is very likely that the other tapes will not be released now, and at least one other OH project looking at the troubles has been cancelled after this debacle.
I would say the political connivance between what SF refers to as 'dark forces' in the PSNI and dissidents elements is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw.
"The IRA women had come for Jean McConville because they believed she had been acting as an informer, passing on low-grade intelligence to the local British army barracks about local members of the IRA. A small radio transmitter had been found in her apartment, and she had been arrested by the IRA and admitted her involvement."
According to Francis Hughes.
1.So if this isn't true that McConville was a tout, as the State maintain, then from their perspective it poses a question about everythng else Hughes has said on the matter.
2. Price failed to mention any involvement in the abduction when volunteering evidence for the Boston tapes. Why?
3. The PSNI hoodwinked the American administration who according to Ed Maloney didn't do 'due dilegence' in accepting the PSNI account that some of what was said was already in the public domain.
In short they lied.
I'm just getting up to speed with this but I would say the political connivance between what SF refers to as 'dark forces' in the PSNI and dissidents elements is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw.
Finally the MConville family who have refused to name those they claim were involved even to police supposedly, announced tonight that they intend to launch a civil action should GA 'not be charged'.
I might be accussed of being unduly suspicious but it looks choreographed to me.
If you've got the time, and don't mind doing so, could you expand on that? As someone who needs to get up to speed on the background to this story, what motivates the 'dark forces' of PSNI to connive with the dissidents?
It's all Frenemies and Fiends these days. Keep up!Because the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
the wts building seven forum is ===> that way1.Well yeah and no it doesn't.
2. She didn't 'fail' to mention, she didn't discuss McConville on the Boston tapes.
3. Now that's collusion... which it isn't.
Connivance between Dark Forces of PSNI and Dissident/Jihadists...that's crackerjack mental.
Oh, that straightforward, eh? And do we suppose the connivance involves dissidents corroborating evidence from the tapes etc?Because the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
yeh because adams doesn't know anyone who can do nasty things to anyone. and these minions do.The family clearly feel they can go after Adams as he is high profile, whereas the local murderers that they know pose too great a risk. I don't see what is specifically suspicious about that.
Oh, that straightforward, eh? And do we suppose the connivance involves dissidents corroborating evidence from the tapes etc?
And do we suppose the connivance involves dissidents corroborating evidence from the tapes etc?
1.Well yeah and no it doesn't.
JR: So you think they can accept his word on one bit of evidence and utterly reject it on another and still be plausible?
You wouldn't get away with that in Highbury Magistrates on a Monday morning which had a 98% conviction rate in the 1980's!
2. She didn't 'fail' to mention, she didn't discuss McConville on the Boston tapes.
JR: She seems to have been voluble enough about who was ultimately responsible after it became public and thus political.
Yeah, right...thanks for that; I'm trying to get up to speed on this and hoping to do so without unduly pissing anyone off.Nothing is ever straightforward.
Time will tell.
Unlike the dissidents themselves, I would be very reluctant to start casting aspersions at republican veterans.
And there is no evidence from the tapes, nor can there be. There is only - and can be - only hearsay.