13 Mar 15
The post that was quoted here has been removedIf its true what strikes me the most about the article is the different emotional responses of Price and Adams. It is difficult to objectively judge what was a vicious,and sometimes heartless conflict , yet Price in the end seems plagued with guilt ,hooked on alcohol and antidepressants , and Adams is completely emotionally detached. The real horror is that Adams may not really care at all.
13 Mar 15
Originally posted by crikey63Adams should be most sorry that he talked most of the IRA into surrendering before all of Ireland was free.
If its true what strikes me the most about the article is the different emotional responses of Price and Adams. It is difficult to objectively judge what was a vicious,and sometimes heartless conflict , yet Price in the end seems plagued with guilt ,hooked on alcohol and antidepressants , and Adams is completely emotionally detached. The real horror is that Adams may not really care at all.
13 Mar 15
Originally posted by no1marauderMy only knowledge of this case is this article , which implies her innocence. If she was innocent it was a dreadful injustice.
She received just punishment for spying on her own people during a war against foreign occupation and oppression.
13 Mar 15
Originally posted by crikey63We discussed the McConville case last May when Adams was briefly detained in connection to it. I said this then:
You make a good point, in the end he sold out, a far greater crime than this poor mother could ever have committed .
I was not aware that one's family situation gives them a pass to inform on their neighbors during a legitimate resistance against foreign occupation and oppression.
According to Ed Moloney's book, A Secret History of the IRA, based on unprecedented access to IRA members, McConville was a fairly open spy even inquiring of neighbors who is the neighborhood was a "Provo". The IRA went to her apartment and found a transmitter but, because of her family situation, issued her a mere warning not to continue in such activities. For whatever reason (probably because the Brits were paying her), she chose to ignore that warning and paid for that decision with her life. Actions have consequences esp. during a guerrilla war against foreign occupiers. The execution of spies in wartime is an accepted practice under the rules of war and a most necessary one. Of course, that is scant comfort to her children but she was hardly the only one killed in the War against Foreign Occupation of Ireland. The only way to assure that no one else will ever be killed in such a war would be to end the occupation.
One could also argue that the Brits were esp. callous and calculating to use such a person as an informer/spy knowing the danger.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=159109&page=2#post_3220871
I realize this is a "hard" way to look at the case, but war is war.
13 Mar 15
Originally posted by no1marauderIf that's the case , she was mad and the Brits bastards for not getting her out (not surprising).
We discussed the McConville case last May when Adams was briefly detained in connection to it. I said this then:
I was not aware that one's family situation gives them a pass to inform on their neighbors during a legitimate resistance against foreign occupation and oppression.
According to Ed Moloney's book, A Secret History of the IRA, based on un ...[text shortened]... 59109&page=2#post_3220871
I realize this is a "hard" way to look at the case, but war is war.
13 Mar 15
Originally posted by crikey63A very big if. This has been debated in the past and is not worth recycling. But I do not agree with what has been said here - for all the reasons covered in the past.
If that's the case , she was mad and the Brits bastards for not getting her out (not surprising).
13 Mar 15
Originally posted by finneganI haven't looked at the previous thread , only the article . As I originally posted, it is difficult if not impossible to objectively judge what occurred during the troubles. My point in the original post , that people can kill for causes , but the emotional responses are different . Price in the article seemed remorseful over her actions , while Adams seemed completely emotionally detached. I wasn't there , I have never fought in a war , nor an armed struggle , I can't judge . What happened is really beyond my comprehension . What I am interested in ,is Adams complete lack of remorse .
A very big if. This has been debated in the past and is not worth recycling. But I do not agree with what has been said here - for all the reasons covered in the past.
13 Mar 15
You and I have no idea what Adams thinks or feels. In the article, we do have a proposal about the image he conveys
The journalist Fintan O’Toole once observed that the ambiguity of the Adams persona was essential to the peace process: in order to participate in the negotiations, Adams had to be accepted as a democratic politician; but, in order to deliver the desired result, he needed to exercise enough control over I.R.A. gunmen so that if he ordered them to lay down their weapons they would comply.When discussing terrorists generally, it is useful to see in this article the dangers of dehumanising them.
“You had no respect for the law, because all’s you seen is brutality,” Michael recalled. “The soldiers getting men against the wall, kicking their legs spread-eagle. That’s what put the seed in a lot of kids’ heads to join the I.R.A.” He sighed. “I don’t think the British had much of a clue about what they were starting.”
It is also useful to get a glimpse of what enables them to risk their lives, and even (as with the IRA hunger strikes discussed in this piece) to simply sacrifice their lives:
in one later interview he discussed what it meant to be a member of the I.R.A., and described the “conundrum of people whose lives are a gesture.” Such people, Rea said, are often “not afraid of death, because your death is acceptable if you’re living for a cause.”
Finally there are a number of places in the article that point out why we cannot trust the motives of those who wish to pursue specific crimes from the Troubles while conveniently ignoring others. In the absence of a full and impartial process of discovery, every story will be told from a partial, untrustworthy and politically motivated angle:
A recent report by Amnesty International criticizes the “piecemeal” investigations of historical abuses, and suggests that, “across the political spectrum, it is those in power who may fear that they have little politically to gain—and possibly much to lose—from any careful examination of Northern Ireland’s past.”
14 Mar 15
Originally posted by finneganYour right, we have no real way of knowing Adams emotional state, but there seems no outward signs of remorse , yet foot soldiers like Price do exhibit signs of bitter regret.
You and I have no idea what Adams thinks or feels. In the article, we do have a proposal about the image he conveysThe journalist Fintan O’Toole once observed that the ambiguity of the Adams persona was essential to the peace process: in order to participate in the negotiations, Adams had to be accepted as a democratic politician; but, in order to ...[text shortened]... gain—and possibly much to lose—from any careful examination of Northern Ireland’s past.”
Is this true in general about our leaders , you look at Bush and Blair , hundreds of thousands of deaths on their hands without any signs of remorse. It would seem impossible to me that you can legitimize the murder of a mother of 10 or the deaths of thousands and show no signs of remorse. Unless you can dissociate yourself from the killing because you have a personality disorder.
14 Mar 15
I'm off on a tangent , but it is the fact that terrible acts ,even committed in 'legitimate causes' can lead to a wide spread disparity in feelings of remorse, from terrible guilt to utter detachment. Its the incidence of detachment , lack of empathy ,that interests me, because it might throw light on why the world is the way it is.
14 Mar 15
Maybe one idea you are searching for is "The Banality of Evil," a concept coined by Hannah Arendt in examining the trial of Eichmann. This is a fine account: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/hannah-arendt-adolf-eichmann-banality-of-evil
What had become banal – and astonishingly so – was the failure to think. Indeed, at one point the failure to think is precisely the name of the crime that Eichmann commits. We might think at first that this is a scandalous way to describe his horrendous crime, but for Arendt the consequence of non-thinking is genocidal, or certainly can be.
that for which she faulted Eichmann was his failure to be critical of positive law, that is, a failure to take distance from the requirements that law and policy imposed upon him; in other words, she faults him for his obedience, his lack of critical distance, or his failure to think.
"Kant, ... to him every man was a legislator the moment he started to act; by using his 'practical reason' man found the principles that could and should be the principles of law."
14 Mar 15
Originally posted by finneganIs that relevant to Adams? He was giving the orders not merely choosing to automatically obey them.
Maybe one idea you are searching for is "The Banality of Evil," a concept coined by Hannah Arendt in examining the trial of Eichmann. This is a fine account: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/hannah-arendt-adolf-eichmann-banality-of-evil
What had become banal – and astonishingly so – was the failure to think. Indeed, at one poi ...[text shortened]... ctical reason' man found the principles that could and should be the principles of law."