Gerry Adams denies IRA membership

[webfact]

Ballymurphy inquest: Gerry Adams denies IRA membership

By Will LeitchBBC News NI

 

Gerry Adams has told the Ballymurphy Inquest he was not a member of the IRA. The inquest is looking into the shooting dead of 10 people in Ballymurphy, west Belfast, in 1971.

 

The Sinn Féin Louth TD said he believed that the Provisional IRA had decided not to engage the British Army well before civilians were shot and killed.

 

He said that when internment began in August 1971 he was a Sinn Féin activist but did not have direct knowledge of the Provisional IRA's actions.

 

Full story: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-48198268

 

 

-- © Copyright BBC 2019-05-09

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[simple1]

Rubbish. At one time Adams was PIRA's Chief of Staff

[faraday]

Lying, murderous, heartless....(you know the word.)

[Spidey]

39 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Rubbish. At one time Adams was PIRA's Chief of Staff

Nope. Even in the early days he was always a Sinn Fein official. Often accused that he was a Provvo and always denied it. No one has ever produced a shred of evidence that he was Provisional IRA.

[simple1]

8 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Nope. Even in the early days he was always a Sinn Fein official. Often accused that he was a Provvo and always denied it. No one has ever produced a shred of evidence that he was Provisional IRA.

Always denied, but plenty of content showing Adams was involved with murders and other terror activities with both the IRA & PIRA.

[faraday]

Next move......

 

He was framed, wants compensation for the 'atrocities committed by Mrs Thatcher'.

 

Mind you, wouldn't be half wrong.

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by faraday

[Spidey]

5 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Always denied, but plenty of content showing Adams was involved with murders and other terror activities with both the IRA & PIRA.

Content? What content? Content put out by the British government? As I said, not a shred of evidence, just baseless accusations and rumours.

[geoffbezoz]

6 minutes ago, faraday said:

Next move......

 

He was framed, wants compensation for the 'atrocities committed by Mrs Thatcher'.

 

Mind you, wouldn't be half wrong.

 

So do the surviving British miners and other families lives she ruined by her government actions but no chance of that ever happening either. ????

[simple1]

46 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Content? What content? Content put out by the British government? As I said, not a shred of evidence, just baseless accusations and rumours.

Around in circles, Adams was a senior strategist for the IRA & PIRA, which would have included violence. Remember politics being the extension of war by other means. In addition he was a known cell leader for a murder squad - look it up

[donnacha]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Rubbish. At one time Adams was PIRA's Chief of Staff

That has never been suggested, even by those who most hate Adams. You might be confusing him with Martin McGuinness, the recently deceased deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, about whom there was a rumor along those lines.

 

57 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Always denied, but plenty of content showing Adams was involved with murders and other terror activities with both the IRA & PIRA.

Most people, fed on a diet of wartime propaganda and tabloid scare-mongering, understand very little about how the Provisional IRA operated. It was a surprisingly small group that used a cell-structure to remain hidden. Infiltrating them was a primary objective of British Intelligence for several decades, so, they had no choice but to be highly selective about who they recruited. It is nonsense to suggest that anyone openly campaigning for civil rights would have been recruited.
 

[donnacha]

36 minutes ago, simple1 said:

In addition he was a known cell leader for a murder squad - look it up

So, you are suggesting that, where the full force of the British government over the past 50 years, including the inquest being reported in the OP, have failed to find any evidence of this, a quick search of Google will enable us to confirm your confused regurgitation of rumors about Martin McGuinness?

 

36 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Remember politics being the extension of war by other means.

Which is why you have separate military and political wings.

On the most basic, practical level, the public, political faces of a movement cannot be active members of a covert military force because it would be too easy to track them. This is why Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg are not also in the SAS.

Following the unforced errors of the British Army early in the modern troubles, in particular the shooting of unarmed civilians on Bloody Sunday, there was no shortage of previously apolitical indigenous youngsters eager to get involved. Most were funneled towards community politics, a select few were funneled towards the army. Gerry Adams was always a good talker, it was clear where his talents lay, he would have been a shit soldier.

Anyone who has bothered to read anything more substantial than tabloids is aware that there were serious tensions between Sinn Fein and the IRA, and Gerry Adams' main job in the final decade before the 1998 peace agreement was to persuade the IRA that peace was the only path that made sense.

Sinn Fein had always made its discomfit with certain IRA tactics clear - if only for the self-serving reason that they were a disaster politically - and it is generally agreed that travesties such as the Warrington bombs attacks in 1993, in which a 3yr-old and a 12yr-old boy were killed, and the Manchester bombing in 1996, were among the final straws that persuaded the IRA that it was time to stand down and let the politicians take control. 

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by donnacha

[faraday]

Let's not forget that Gerry Adams, was the first person to drive & place a car bomb in Belfast.

 

I hope the undercurrent of his defence that I perceive in this thread is incorrect.

 

Yup, the Blitish government did behave atrociously. We also need to remember that.

 

On topic though, I went to Belfast in the noughties; it's a lovely city, but I was surprised how few CCTV there was compared to the mainland.

[donnacha]

1 minute ago, faraday said:

I hope the undercurrent of his defence that I perceive in this thread is incorrect.

I don't think anyone is defending Adams, we are just incredulous that people are naive enough to believe, with certainty, scraps of propaganda that simple logic tells us cannot be true.
 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, faraday said:

Let's not forget that Gerry Adams, was the first person to drive & place a car bomb in Belfast.

Perfect example. In all those decades of Adams being a thorn in the side of the British establishment, including being an MP for 24 years, don't you think it might have occurred to someone to, you know, prosecute him for driving around with car bombs?

Back in those days, British judges would have happily convicted him with far less certainty than you appear to have.

Again, the political and military sides of the movement had to be kept separate. Nothing to do with morals, or Adams being some sort of angel, it simply wasn't how the IRA operated.

 

8 minutes ago, faraday said:

Yup, the Blitish government did behave atrociously. We also need to remember that.

There were atrocities on both sides, war brings out the worse in most people. The point of the peace agreement is that you draw a line and move on. The recent prosecution of one of the British soldiers responsible for the killing of civilians on Bloody Sunday is a dumb mistake for that reason.

 

14 minutes ago, faraday said:

On topic though, I went to Belfast in the noughties; it's a lovely city, but I was surprised how few CCTV there was compared to the mainland.

There was very little petty crime in Northern Ireland, so, less need for CCTV. For instance, in the indigenous communities, if you tried dealing drugs you would be beaten and warned. If you persisted, you would be knee-capped and banished. Thus, the petty crime problem was mostly exported to London.

[evadgib]

 

Some excellent posts from you @donnacha but I don't necessarily agree with all of your points & will add a few of my own:

- The rules of engagement changed as a direct result of the attack on the world trade centre in 2001. Prior to that date Britain was shit scared of NORAID & the Irish vote, even to the point where helicopters had their guns removed & hot pursuit wasn't always possible across the border. If there was a resumption in hostilities today there would be no such fear. A Brimstone could more or less be lobbed down the chimney quicker than Santa Claus (tongue-in-cheek but you get my drift) and a drone programme would see 24hrs blanket surveillance operated from establishments in mainland uk with no need for boots on the ground.

 

- The IRA of yesteryear was so heavily infiltrated and compromised that their only real option was to seek a political solution. Several standing jokes at the time made light of this, inc one that suggested their lunch menu had been checked for errors etc....

 

- If Adams wasn't a Terrorist why was he banged up in H block (HMP Long Kesh/'The Maze') and to paraphrase Basil Fawlty "Who's this then?"

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by evadgib

[simple1]

3 hours ago, donnacha said:

That has never been suggested, even by those who most hate Adams. You might be confusing him with Martin McGuinness, the recently deceased deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, about whom there was a rumor along those lines.

 

Most people, fed on a diet of wartime propaganda and tabloid scare-mongering, understand very little about how the Provisional IRA operated. It was a surprisingly small group that used a cell-structure to remain hidden. Infiltrating them was a primary objective of British Intelligence for several decades, so, they had no choice but to be highly selective about who they recruited. It is nonsense to suggest that anyone openly campaigning for civil rights would have been recruited.
 

I do not read tabloids. I am UK citizen, visited NI during The Troubles, Was living in London (Londoner) during IRA bombing campaign and so on. Thanks I am familiar with structure of PIRA. I disagree with  your conclusion and no I am not confusing with McGuinness.

Edited May 9, 2019 by simple1

[rott]

4 hours ago, Spidey said:

Nope. Even in the early days he was always a Sinn Fein official. Often accused that he was a Provvo and always denied it. No one has ever produced a shred of evidence that he was Provisional IRA.

McGuinness always denied it too.

 

If he had no connection how was he so sure that "they haven't gone away you know"?

[donnacha]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

 

3 minutes ago, evadgib said:

The rules of engagement changed as a direct result of the attack on the world trade centre in 2001. Prior to that date Britain was shit scared of NORAID & the Irish vote, even to the point where helicopters had their guns removed & hot pursuit wasn't always possible across the border.

The peace agreement was signed in 1998 and came into effect just before the Millenium.

The support of Irish Americans was never as important as British commentators, such as the excellent Peter Hitchens, have believed. The real problem was that the British themselves were embarrassed to be fighting a colonial war as they headed into the 21st Century. The broad sympathy across Europe and the rest of the world for the indigenous minority in Northern Ireland - as opposed to the IRA - was real.

From a PR standpoint, it simply did not play well, it perpetuated a caricature of the English that they were desperate to shake.

The Americans, with the private approval of the Irish-American legislators, were 100% behind assisting the British in defeating the IRA, with intelligence and several high-profile prosecutions of gun runners.

The Irish-Americans might get drunk and sing rebel songs, but when it came down to the bottom line, they understood where America's interests lay.

Tony Blair picked up an opportunity that John Major was too politically weak to pick up when he was Prime Minister. Gerry Adams essentially offered the total surrender of the IRA with one vital caveat: it could never be called a surrender because that would splinter the already reluctant IRA.

This offer was delivered to Major by the moderate, highly-respected, anti-violence indigenous political leader John Hume. Major had to turn it down because his party, the Conservatives, were already deeply divided on Europe.

Tony Blair, elected with a big majority in 1997, did not hesitate to grab the easy win.
 

 

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

The IRA of yesteryear was so heavily infiltrated and compromised that their only real option was to seek a political solution.

Yes, this was Adams' argument to the IRA. Surveillance technology was improving at such a rapid pace, it was clear that, soon, no form of armed against a sitting government would ever again be possible.

As you say, infiltration was a growing problem, from both the British and the Republic of Ireland government, which was more hostile to the IRA than most people realize.

By this stage, on a per-capita basis, the Irish economy was outperforming the UK and, beyond a few obligatory nods to history, most Irish wanted to be a thriving modern European country, the war in the North struck them as an anachronism.

More importantly, the international mood was changing. Membership of the EU made it harder for the British to rebuff questions about what was happening in Northern Ireland. Just as surveillance tech was progressing, so were other forms of technology, and people were generally becoming more aware of what was happening around the world.

Blair had the wind at his back. He knew that most British people liked the Irish, they weren't too fond of Ian Paisley, he knew that they were tired of hearing about terror attacks on British soil (this was before British Muslims became radicalized) and this was precisely the sort of grand change he had been elected to provide.

With solid backing from Clinton, the EU and the Irish government, he was able to take a punt on the bet that, behind the shouty, red-faced intransigence of the Unionists, was a growing doubt about the righteousness of their own position. The historic racism against the indigenous did not feel as defensible as it used to, especially when Northern Ireland was falling so far behind the South economically.

So, what Adams gets credit for is having started, a decade or so before, the long process of moving the entire Republican movement away from violence, so that they would be ready once all the other jigsaw pieces fell into place in the mid and late 90's.

What the tabloid readers attacking him are missing is that he had to do it in a way that avoided groups splintering off along the way. As the political face of Republicanism, he had to stand beside the IRA, but that is not the same as being in the IRA and, in fact, he worked tirelessly to make them unnecessary.

 

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

If Adams wasn't a Terrorist why was he banged up for in H block (HMP Long Kesh/'The Maze') and to paraphrase Basil Fawlty "Who's this then?"

It was called internment. It was introduced in August 1971 by Unionist prime minister Brian Faulkner, under the auspices of the Special Powers Act. 
 

Quote

Internment is the practice of detaining or imprisoning individuals without a trial or due process. It is usually implemented during a period of war or conflict; those interned are suspected of working with or aiding the enemy. 

Essentially, when the civil rights movement gathered momentum in the North, demanding equal rights for Catholics, the Unionists panicked and interned anyone and everyone they perceived as a threat. Adams qualified because he had been involved in the civil rights movement (modeled on the American civil rights movement) since 1969.

The horrific irony of Internment is that, at the time, the IRA were a largely defunct force, but throwing every politically-engaged Catholic into a camp gave them time to talk, learn and become far more radicalized than they would ever otherwise have been. It was a catastrophically dumb move.

 

Quote

“The introduction of internment without trial in August 1971 ended what hopes remained that the Nationalists would cooperate with the Northern Irish government and, therefore, the prospects for some kind of power-sharing political accommodation that might undermine the IRA’s military campaign. Internment without trial, though welcomed widely in Britain at the time, was probably the single most disastrous measure introduced during the recent troubles, resulting in a major escalation of violence.”
Paul Dixon, historian

As for the beret photo, you have to remember that Adams was a respected civil rights activist. As in any community, when a respected soldier dies, all the notable folks turn up at the funeral to show their respects.

Wearing a beret, at that time, was a nod to the increasingly militant stance of other minority communities around the world, such as the Black Panthers in the US.

Remember, this was 1971, Che Guevara was considered a hero (people did not yet know about all the innocent women and children he executed), so, having civilian leaders wearing berets gave a feeling of military gravitas to such a funeral.

Meanwhile, the actual IRA soldiers could only take part by running up in balaclavas (to hide their identities), and firing a volley of shots over the grave and then, the entire funeral crowd would block the army and police while they sprinted off.

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by donnacha

[Spidey]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

Around in circles, Adams was a senior strategist for the IRA & PIRA, which would have included violence. Remember politics being the extension of war by other means. In addition he was a known cell leader for a murder squad - look it up

I've looked it up. As I said zero evidence, perhaps you could provide some?

[Spidey]

49 minutes ago, rott said:

McGuinness always denied it too.

 

If he had no connection how was he so sure that "they haven't gone away you know"?

No one said that he didn't have a connection to the IRA. Sinn FEin is the political wing of the IRA. He wasn't an IRA soldier though. He didn't take part in or plan operations. No one either, has denied that Martin McGuinness was in the Provvos and did take part in operations.

[simple1]

3 minutes ago, Spidey said:

I've looked it up. As I said zero evidence, perhaps you could provide some?

last response as plenty of content regards these matters. Insufficient evidence for a criminal case - not exactly surprising is it. 

[donnacha]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

I do not read tabloids. I am UK citizen, visited NI during The Troubles, Was living in London (Londoner) during IRA bombing campaign and so on. Thanks I am familiar with structure of PIRA. I disagree with  your conclusion and no I am not confusing with McGuinness.

The difference between us is that I have laid out my reasoning for my assertion that a guerilla army, up against one of the most advanced armies and intelligence services in the world, would not last very long if its secret soldiers double-job as high profile political activists.

All you have done is keep repeating your assertion, adding not one link or iota of insight that might support it. Regardless of where you have lived, and regardless of whether you read tabloids, you are uncritically repeating propaganda that is designed for a tabloid audience.

What is sad is that, if more of the British population, which still has the highest tabloid readership in the world, had learned to think critically, and seen beyond the cartoon-style propaganda that you are getting tangled up in, the Sunningdale Agreement of 1973 could have allowed us all to avoid 25 years of war in Northern Ireland. All we needed was just a drop of common sense and fairness. 

 

Quote

The Good Friday Agreement is Sunningdale for slow learners.

        - Séamus Mallon, 1st deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by donnacha

[Spidey]

22 minutes ago, simple1 said:

last response as plenty of content regards these matters. Insufficient evidence for a criminal case - not exactly surprising is it. 

Plenty of content that you are unable to provide. Insufficient evidence for a criminal case and insufficient evidence for anyone to level the accusation and be taken seriously.

[baansgr]

5 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

So do the surviving British miners and other families lives she ruined by her government actions but no chance of that ever happening either. ????

Second, third and fourth that, bitch

[rott]

Sinn Fein and the IRA are one and the same thing, different sides of the one coin.

Whether or not Adams was an active service man is difficult to prove, I do not doubt that he queried the efficacy of the "armed struggle", ie murder and mayhem.

[sungod]

No evidence correct, otherwise he would have done serious jail time. There is however a multitude of self confessed IRA members who have named Adams as a member of the IRA, even making decisions on the army council.

[simple1]

2 hours ago, donnacha said:

The difference between us is that I have laid out my reasoning for my assertion that a guerilla army, up against one of the most advanced armies and intelligence services in the world, would not last very long if its secret soldiers double-job as high profile political activists.

All you have done is keep repeating your assertion, adding not one link or iota of insight that might support it. Regardless of where you have lived, and regardless of whether you read tabloids, you are uncritically repeating propaganda that is designed for a tabloid audience.

What is sad is that, if more of the British population, which still has the highest tabloid readership in the world, had learned to think critically, and seen beyond the cartoon-style propaganda that you are getting tangled up in, the Sunningdale Agreement of 1973 could have allowed us all to avoid 25 years of war in Northern Ireland. All we needed was just a drop of common sense and fairness. 
 

Up to you if you believe it is appropriate to insult the UK population in general, I don't.

 

The info I refer to is easily available, so lets cease the silliness eh? BTW I personally would not define the IRA /PIRA as a "guerilla army", the correct definition IMO is a terrorist organisation/s. However, pray tell how many active combatants did the 'guerilla army' have at any given time? More than a few terror groups have unfortunately given "advanced armies and intelligence services" grief and still do so, including in NI. Just to keep you happy a few links...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/14/police-severe-terror-threat-ira-northern-ireland-bomb-attacks

 

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/northern-ireland

Edited May 9, 2019 by simple1

[metisdead]

Off topic posts, inflammatory posts and the replies have been removed. 

 

Posts in violation of fair use policy were removed, off topic anyway.

 

Posts replying to previously removed posts have been removed.  

Edited May 9, 2019 by metisdead

[donnacha]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

Up to you if you believe it is appropriate to insult the UK population in general, I don't.

I am British. We only hurt ourselves by indulging in lazy wartime propaganda. The vast majority of British people instinctively understood that the oppression of people on the basis of ethnicity was wrong and welcomed the peace agreement. 

 

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

I personally would not define the IRA /PIRA as a "guerilla army", the correct definition IMO is a terrorist organisation/s.

Terrorist is a propaganda term, all armies trade in terror. I abhor attacks on civilians but recognize that demonizing your opponents is a propaganda tactic, primarily targeting your own population, which often delays the chance of finding peace.

Remember, what really sparked the modern troubles was not some disconnected desire to be part of a united Ireland but the withholding of civil rights on the basis of ethnicity. Almost no-one alive today, apart from the unhinged or ignorant, would consider that situation fair, and not something we ourselves would accept without a fight. 

Nelson Mandela was also a "terrorist", but most people, today, agree that he did have a point.

Again, we had a 25-year war on British soil which was completely unnecessary. We had a power-sharing agreement, delivering basic civil rights, in 1974 but Conservative government of Edward Heath, already weakened by divisions over Europe, allowed the Unionists to torpedo it. 

 

8 hours ago, simple1 said:

However, pray tell how many active combatants did the 'guerilla army' have at any given time?

Approximately 200.
 

8 hours ago, simple1 said:

Just to keep you happy a few links...

Thank you. I would note that both are about today's dissident republican splinter groups that Gerry Adams worked so hard to prevent. They are tiny, poorly co-ordinated groups with little operational efficiency and practically no community support. They are explicitly opposed to Sinn Fein and Adams, believing their participation in the peace agreement to have been a betrayal.

What little momentum the dissident groups currently have stems from the fact that, once again, a weak Conservative government, divided over Europe, has allowed the Unionists to torpedo the power-sharing executive. There is also unhappiness with Brexit, which Northern Ireland voted against but will be disproportionately affected by.

Political context is less fun than propaganda but, if you want to actually solve problems, it is vital not to confuse the two.

[simple1]

6 hours ago, donnacha said:

I am British. We only hurt ourselves by indulging in lazy wartime propaganda. The vast majority of British people instinctively understood that the oppression of people on the basis of ethnicity was wrong and welcomed the peace agreement. 

 

Terrorist is a propaganda term, all armies trade in terror. I abhor attacks on civilians but recognize that demonizing your opponents is a propaganda tactic, primarily targeting your own population, which often delays the chance of finding peace.

Remember, what really sparked the modern troubles was not some disconnected desire to be part of a united Ireland but the withholding of civil rights on the basis of ethnicity. Almost no-one alive today, apart from the unhinged or ignorant, would consider that situation fair, and not something we ourselves would accept without a fight. 

Nelson Mandela was also a "terrorist", but most people, today, agree that he did have a point.

Again, we had a 25-year war on British soil which was completely unnecessary. We had a power-sharing agreement, delivering basic civil rights, in 1974 but Conservative government of Edward Heath, already weakened by divisions over Europe, allowed the Unionists to torpedo it. 

 

Approximately 200.
 

Thank you. I would note that both are about today's dissident republican splinter groups that Gerry Adams worked so hard to prevent. They are tiny, poorly co-ordinated groups with little operational efficiency and practically no community support. They are explicitly opposed to Sinn Fein and Adams, believing their participation in the peace agreement to have been a betrayal.

What little momentum the dissident groups currently have stems from the fact that, once again, a weak Conservative government, divided over Europe, has allowed the Unionists to torpedo the power-sharing executive. There is also unhappiness with Brexit, which Northern Ireland voted against but will be disproportionately affected by.

Political context is less fun than propaganda but, if you want to actually solve problems, it is vital not to confuse the two.

Thanks, but I am aware of the background to the Troubles i.e. leveraging catholic disenfranchisement. Again I disagree with your observations of the status of PIRA. PIRA fully meet with the criteria of a terrorist organisation. Whilst Mandela is off topic, I don't recall their deliberate targeting of civilians, I think there were few exceptions where civilians were killed, for which the ANC apologised. 

 

I do know political decisions are vital for resolving armed conflict, whether by terrorists or State players - about time to stop being condescending is it not. You may like to research Rand's analysis on the success or otherwise of resolving conflict by terror / 'independence' groups.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by simple1

[Baerboxer]

On 5/9/2019 at 6:44 AM, Spidey said:

Content? What content? Content put out by the British government? As I said, not a shred of evidence, just baseless accusations and rumours.

 

All those pictures of him, a young militant leader, with other young IRA leaders like McGuiness. All his speeches, his questioning and comments about the 'disappeared" etc etc etc.

 

And you believe him!

 

McGuiness came clean. Moved on. Earned a lot of respect from all sided. Adams can't help himself; and has more to hide. 

 

Lying POS. Remembering his whining when the PIRA scum were intercepted in Gibralta before they were able to murder innocent people. This scumbag has never moved on.