Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that the timing of Gerry Adam's arrest does stink a bit?

299 replies

ClubName · 05/05/2014 08:53

I despise the man and hope they have enough on him to let him rot, throw away the key etc

But, whatever they have it's not new (not new this week anyway) and I can see why he and his supporters think the timing of his arrest is political.

More importantly, unless he does end up in prison for a long time (which sadly I doubt) this whole business is just going to enhance his popularity and build the case that the PSNI aren't impartial Sad

OP posts:
VeryStressedMum · 05/05/2014 16:16

Waltermitty, what do you mean the army wasn't there because of violence but there was violence because they were there?
There was violence, that's why the army were called in. The army didn't just turn up one day for no reason in a peaceful country and then the fighting started.

scarlettsmummy2 · 05/05/2014 16:17

I meant in the long term. Their continued presence was primarily due to sustained terrorism over a long period of time.

scarlettsmummy2 · 05/05/2014 16:19

Yes very- that was my point too. Although to be fair, the nationalist community had every right to be aggrieved at their treatment with regards to discrimination, but terrorism was not the way to deal with it.

JanineStHubbins · 05/05/2014 16:21

What was the way to deal with it, then?

Waltermittythesequel · 05/05/2014 16:28

^Waltermitty, what do you mean the army wasn't there because of violence but there was violence because they were there?
There was violence, that's why the army were called in. The army didn't just turn up one day for no reason in a peaceful country and then the fighting started^

Yes, I'm aware of that.
However there was violence because it was occupied by an invader state: the British.

Waltermittythesequel · 05/05/2014 16:29

terrorism was not the way to deal with it

Freedom fighting was. Which amounts to the same thing really.

Depending on what side you were on.

scarlettsmummy2 · 05/05/2014 16:50

Nonsense. If that was the case, it would have been the Irish Army vs the British Army in the same way as any other legal war. It was sustained terrorism resulting in the murder of innocent people.

Waltermittythesequel · 05/05/2014 16:59

Your ignorance is showing again.

Because the IRA was exactly that. The Irish army.

PigletJohn · 05/05/2014 17:05

"Because the IRA was exactly that. The Irish army."

That is completely wrong. The Republic of Ireland has its own government, its own police, and its own army.

FrigginRexManningDay · 05/05/2014 17:07

Scarlett if we are going to play this game then Britain started it by invading Ireland and taking the land off the people.

Waltermittythesequel · 05/05/2014 17:12

That is completely wrong. The Republic of Ireland has its own government, its own police, and its own army

Er, no it's not. Have you ever read up on the origins of the IRA?

And I'm well aware that we have our own government since they take half my bloody money!

JanineStHubbins · 05/05/2014 17:12

"Because the IRA was exactly that. The Irish army."

That is completely wrong. The Republic of Ireland has its own government, its own police, and its own army.

I think what WalterMitty means is that the old IRA are recognised as the first army of the Irish state.

JanineStHubbins · 05/05/2014 17:12

xpost

squoosh · 05/05/2014 17:13

I see a huge distinction between old IRA and present day IRA.

scarlettsmummy2 · 05/05/2014 17:16

The Provisional IRA are not an army. They are a terrorist organisation, with no state backing from the Irish Government and were not acting on their behalf. The troubles were therefore not a war between two opposing nations.

Waltermittythesequel · 05/05/2014 17:16

I see a huge distinction between old IRA and present day IRA

Well, yeah?!

JanineStHubbins · 05/05/2014 17:17

What distinction do you see, squoosh?

FrigginRexManningDay · 05/05/2014 17:21

Scarlett Heres some things to look up......
Plantation
Penal laws
Hedge Schools
The Great Hunger (aka The Irish potato famine)
Black and Tans
Irish Free State

That should kind of bring you up to speed about Catholic discrimination,its not just jobs and housing.

FrigginRexManningDay · 05/05/2014 17:25

Btw I am not an IRA fan or anything, it just boils my piss when someone makes comments about things they do not know about, particularly Irish history.

Waltermittythesequel · 05/05/2014 17:26

Same, friggin

squoosh · 05/05/2014 17:28

By and large the old IRA limited their attacks to military targets, the prov IRA went out of their way to target civilians.

scarlettsmummy2 · 05/05/2014 17:28

Figgin- I did do all these subjects at school, but bearing in mind that they all happened at least fifty years before the provisional IRA were established, and long before Gerry Adams was even born, they don't explain or excuse murdering innocent people.

BruthasTortoise · 05/05/2014 17:29

Scarlett would you consider the men and women who staged the 1916 Easter Rising to be terrorists? Or those who fought in the War of independence?

JanineStHubbins · 05/05/2014 17:33

That distinction (military/civilian) isn't quite so clear-cut, I don't think. The Old IRA killed plenty of civilians - in cross fire, by mistake, as warnings, as informers, or because they were considered to be somehow implicated in or supportive of the British presence in Ireland. Both IRAs had a fairly elastic definition of what might be considered a legitimate target.

Interesting chronicle here - it aligns with a lot of recent scholarship on the revolutionary period, surprisingly enough.

PigletJohn · 05/05/2014 17:34

If Walter was talking sense (which she isn't) then the British army could have invaded the Republic of Ireland, or the RAF could have bombed Dublin, the Royal Navy could have sunk Irish ships, and all Irish citizens in the UK could have been interned.

It was not that sort of war.