Over the past six weeks there have been countless calls for SF/IRA to choose between terrorism and democracy. It would appear they already have made that decision. The decision now is now with the governments as to whether to progress with the democratic parties or allow SF/IRA to veto political progress.

"Jim Cusack suggests that a 'limited return to war' is on the cards, in order to prevent the IRA from splitting."

Absolute bullshit!!

Some political opponents may hope that the IRA does go back to war but the Republican movement isn't stupid

People are going to have to accept that Sinn Féin is a key player and they are not going away you know

"Now the Sunday Independent can reveal that the IRA is actually veering back towards a new terror campaign."

Thank God the yellow press in Ireland is not inflammatory.

cg,

"the republican movement isn't stupid"

Quite correct, it's not, but it's voters sure are

A totally irresponsible piece of sensationalism that sums up the role of the Sindo in Irish political life.
It is totally baseless and will only feed into the whole web of lies that is wallowing about since the Northern job.

A few weeks ago this same journalist gave quite a detailed profile(sic) of the IRA member called back into the IRA (even his sexula preferences) to plan the Northern job, apparently he also knew some others of the gang. Yet when he was on the Vincent Browne show that was linked from this site he was as ignorant as everone else on the people behind the robbery, retreating to the 'they are the only ones capable' line.

The thing is; the same "security sources" that continue to feed Cusack this nonsense are the very same people who are advising the governments on the state of play within republicanism.

Henry - they might even be the same security sources
that were pointing the finger at the IRA over the killing of Garda McCabe - even though if we had all been on Slugger at the time the same posters would be saying Gerry says it wasn't anything to do with the IRA....

Davros

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

So you concede they might be right ?

Jim had quite a few articles published today. I was taking him somewhat seriously until I read how the Florida smuggling operation was a dry run for smuggling 60 tons of weapons from Central America. They were planning on showing up at the USPS with a couple of large parcels? Maybe the Northern robbery was to pay for the postage.

Jim could even be using the 'sources ' currently under investigation at the Morris Tribunal.

I would expect the border between RM propaganda and PIRA disinformation to be the first to disappear if a resumption were underway.

I would not expect this to be a return to gun and bomb attacks, at least at first, but if some deadhead loyalists would like to oblige the army council with an overreaction to some PIRA choreographed anti-social behaviour ..

And on no account should Unionist parties replace diehard leaders or distance themselves from sectarian discrimination, and this would endanger the dialectic of Irish national liberation from England through the judicious application of firearms against anachronistic provincial persons with odd accents.

I was taking him somewhat seriously until I read how the Florida smuggling operation was a dry run for smuggling 60 tons of weapons from Central America.

That's not what he wrote. I wonder if any of the missing bird-watchers had Central American stamps in their (false) Passports ?

Davros

So you concede they might be right ?

I don't think it's about being right. I don't believe they are simply mistaken. I believe they are making up what they feed to Cusack as usual. My concern is that they are doing the same to the governments.

That's not what he wrote

That is precisely what he wrote, Davros. Try reading ALL the articles he has in todays Sunday Independent.

Jim Cusack's pieces are Alice in Wonderland stuff - without the humour or the literary quality.

The same newspaper ran a front page story on Monica Leech's claim that the entire Cullen-gate saga was as a result of the IRA, allegedly, burgling their house.

Has the Sindo managed to come up with a link between the Asian tSunami and IRA involvement yet?

Henry94

I don't believe they are simply mistaken. I believe they are making up what they feed to Cusack as usual.

Why would they do that??

The BBC's security editor was on Talkback rubbishing Cusack's claims about half an hour ago.

The News Letter and UTV Internet followed up the story, but they were reports of the Sindo story, rather than any kind of confirmation.

It is a case of, you pays your money you takes your choice. Gerry Moriarity in the I Times quotes a government 'source' as describing the Sindo allegations as 'absolute rubbish'.

The problem still rests with the simple fact that the Republican movement have failed to install trust into any of the political players including those of the Nationalist persuauion. People are either totally sick and tired of hearing the lies, or strating to realise what the true SF agenda is.
Let the truth be heard by all, not lies, just the truth!
Its about time that people got to know the real SF.

TT
Are any of the parties actually honest about their agendas?

Maca, my advice to any political commentator is not to confuse political speel with militarily motivated movements. Of course all parties have their spin, but it is a world of difference when you are talking about a movement who currently have the Jekyll and Hyde approach. The IRA are an extremely dangerous movement who are intent on doing whatever is necessary to achieve their goals.

Assuming that Cusack's assessment is based on an unreliable source, does that mean that, tactically, the Prime Minister is playing softly-softly with Sinn Fein when he could be tougher?

It seems obvious now that Blair's real concern is not establishing genuinely stable democractic institutions in Northern Ireland, but to buy off different sets of terrorists in order to prevent bombs going off in London.

If Blair wants peace in Ireland to be his historical legacy, it is a peace that has been defined by its lack of stability and willing sacrifice of democratic norms for political expediency.

Gonzo,

'Assuming that Cusack's assessment is based on an unreliable source'

Cusack et al spin the line that if Adams and Mc Guinness have to go and see the IRA all they have to do is go and look in the mirror. I would advise that Cusacks' unreliable source wouldn't be too far from his bathroom mirror when he's having a shave.
After the onslaught of the last week or so he probably assumed that he could get away with any old guff to fill up the Sindo. He must be horribly embarrassed that Ahern has all but labelled both his employer and him liars.

And to think they put such store in Ahern last week.

Aha - so is Cusack being rubbished by the infamous sucrocrats

Interestingly enough his article also contained a report that Bobby Sands was suspected of bombing a S. Belfast bar, killing two. The briefest fact check would have shown that no such attack took place in S. Belfast while Sands was at large. It might also have lead Cusack to get the year of his arrest right. Very sloppy work.

"Interestingly enough his article also contained a report that Bobby Sands was suspected of bombing a S. Belfast bar, killing two."

A rare mistake from you Jimmy...

Sands, who was arrested while carrying out the bombing of a carpet sales room in Belfast in 1977, was also suspected by the RUC of being involved in the sectarian murder of two middle-aged Protestants in a gun attack on a public house in south Belfast in the mid-1970s. He was never charged.

Oops, my mistake. See how easy it is.

Still nothing on CAIN fits the description he gave.

It is now widely recognised that The Sunday Independent has a very serious credibility problem. This is only the latest is a long series of stories that had no foundation whatsoever.

Still waiting for Henry to answer my 1.13 of yesterday.

willowfield

Let's agree on the what before we discuss the why.

It is clear from the Taoiseach yesterday that they lied to Cusack. Again.

Do you accept that they lied or do you think Cusack made up the story himself. Or is it true that the IRA are returning to war but the "security sources" haven't told the Irish government?

HENRY94

I've no idea whether they lied or not. What I am asking is why would they lie?

willowfield

Do you accept that either they lied or Cusack lied? Is there another logical explanation you can think of?

I'm sure there are lots of permutations. Stop avoiding the question. Why WOULD security services in the Republic lie? What would their motivation be?

Maybe it was to give Blair cover for his statement yesterday about the Northern raid being linked to IRA dissention in the ranks?

It all follows on from Adams hinting that he would do all he could to prevent a return to violence.

It's a familiar pattern in the peace process:

Talks fail/Government collapses at around the time of an IRA 'spectacular' (before or after).

Adams rattles his sabre.

Blair has a dream about a bomb going off in the City.

Blair plays softly-softly for a while, while trying to appear tough.

Because Blair is trying to look hard, Adams mopes around and complains about sanctions for a while.

The IRA keeps quiet. Sinn Fein doesn't.

The talks start again once the familiar ritual has been completed.

willowfield

I'm sure there are lots of permutations.

There are two. The security sources are lying or Cusack is lying.

Why WOULD security services in the Republic lie?

Why would Cusack?

Stop avoiding the question.

Your question leads us away from the facts. Face up to the facts first.

There are two. The security sources are lying or Cusack is lying.

Or neither is lying. That's three.

Why would Cusack?

I've no idea.

Why would the Republic's security services lie to Cusack? You must have some ideas. Answer the question.

willowfield

Or neither is lying. That's three

The Taoiseach's intervention has eliminated that possibility. Your unwillingness to face the facts on this issue speaks for itself and your question is an attempt to divert the discussion away from the facts.

Henry94

The Taoiseach's intervention has eliminated that possibility.

How?

Your unwillingness to face the facts on this issue speaks for itself and your question is an attempt to divert the discussion away from the facts.

I'm not unwilling to face the facts and my question is not an attempt to divert the discussion?

Why are you so scared to answer the question??

Just tell us why you think the ROI security services would give disinformation to Cusack.

willowfield

You might be willing to repeat yourself endlessly but I'm not. I think it's obvious that you are the one avoiding the issue here and your one-trick-pony debating style isn't going to change that.

I'm not avoiding any issue. I just want to know why you think ROI security services would be giving out disinformation. Since you made the suggestion that this was what they were doing, it's a perfectly reasonable question.

You are scared to answer for some reason.

Pathetic.

Willow.

Sorry to intervene, but are you suggesting that security forces in the Republic might have information about a possible IRA return to war, and that they have not passed on this information to the Taoiseach? Their boss?

Yet they HAVE passed on this information to a newspaper of dubious repute?

I'm not suggesting anything.

I'm asking why Henry94 thinks ROI security services would pass disinformation to a journalist.

Willow

I don't know, perhaps black propaganda? I mean, the security forces are opposed to the IRA. Black propaganda is one of the standard operating procedures for security forces in any country - why would Ireland be any different?

For example, are you so naive as to believe that security forces do not plant stories through compliant journalists? Are you so naive as to doubt that MI5, for example, have a few co-operative journalists they can turn to in Belfast right now? It might sound cloak and dagger but it does happen.

I'm not suggesting that Cusack is anything other than a professional and ethical journalist, but things like political outlook and the editorial tone of the paper are things that security services look at when looking for potential places to plant useful disinformation. They would be aware, for example, that if they said the provos had acquired WMD, the Sunday Indo would be absolutely ecstatic at running the story.

So that's one reason why an invented story might be planted.

Now it's over to you to explain why the security services would withhold such information from the government for which they work.

Or you could be man enough to accept that, on the balance of probabilities, it's unlikely that the story is true.

Billy P

I don't know, perhaps black propaganda? I mean, the security forces are opposed to the IRA. Black propaganda is one of the standard operating procedures for security forces in any country - why would Ireland be any different?

Thanks for having the courtesy of answering the question.

I wonder why Henry94 was so scared to do so?

Now it's over to you to explain why the security services would withhold such information from the government for which they work.

Why? I have never made such a suggestion. Why would I explain it?

Or you could be man enough to accept that, on the balance of probabilities, it's unlikely that the story is true.

I've no idea whether the story is true or not.

So despite all the nonsense the issue remains as it always was. Dis Cusack make it up or was it the "security sources".

Willow.

Of course you don't KNOW whether the story is true or not. But clearly you have an OPINION. Are you going to tell us what that opinion is?

(Note: this latest exchange is a salient example of why you are so often accused of intellectual dishonesty. It is clear that, after the Taoiseach's intervention, either the journalist was making the story up or his source was lying. You pretend not to grasp this. Dishonesty.)

I have no opinion on the matter, Billy. I simply don't know.

(PS. It's possible that the Taesaoich is wrong. He could be lying. Or he could have been lied to.)

Henry94

Why were you scared to answer the question?

If you won't explain why the security services might have been lying, might you offer a reason why the journalist was lying? Or are you scared to answer that one, too?

This is not a complicated story at all. Independent Newspapers have set their face against the inclusivity of the Peace Process from the very start.
Despite the many obvious benefits of the process that newspaper group and a cartel of columnists and journalists has maintained an aggressively hostile line on the process. Without exception the hostility has been aimed at northern nationalists and their political representatives, mainly, but not exclusively, SF. In fact it is unheard of for republicans to be given any platform at Independent Newspapers. All the while a battery of columnists and scribblers hack away at the process on an almost daily basis, but in the main confined to the Sunday edition.

In the maelstrom that has accommpanied the Northern job journalists from across the board have had a field day with sometimes conflicting 'evidence' surrounding events, the common theme being an anti SF line.

The Sindo and Cusack believed that with the unparalleled hostility coming from Ahern's office since the start of the year they could slip in any old drivel and pass it off as news.
Unfortunately the categoric denial from the Taoiseach's office has left that newspaper chain and that particular 'reporter' looking like damaged goods.

Indeed such is the size of the brass neck of the O'Reilly bunch that the daily Irish Independent carried the Taoiseach's denial of the story that emanated in a 'Sunday Newspaper'.

So all in all, no sources, no evidence, no story. Just another day at the office for your typical Independent journo.

willowfield

If you won't explain why the security services might have been lying, might you offer a reason why the journalist was lying?

That's more like it. Given that one of them was lying who is most likely and why?
It is entirely conceivable that the "security sources" and Cusack have an understanding where he gets information on the basis that he doesn't look too closely at its accuracy. As for motivation I believe both have a shared interest in damaging the peace process. Cusack because it is the policy of his employer and the "security sources" because of their own political and other objectives.

I don't think your claims about the Taoiseach stand up. Why would he lie? Who would be lying to him?

Henry94

As for motivation I believe both have a shared interest in damaging the peace process. Cusack because it is the policy of his employer and the "security sources" because of their own political and other objectives.

And why couldn't you have said that earlier? Very strange.

What do you think these "political and other objectives" of the security services are?

I don't think your claims about the Taoiseach stand up. Why would he lie? Who would be lying to him?

No idea.

willowfield

What do you think these "political and other objectives" of the security services are?

I think the political objectives are the usual anti-republican ones and the other ones include an attempt to prevent a deal being reached which would see the rearly release of the people convicted in the McCabe case.

I see.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Willow

``I don't think your claims about the Taoiseach stand up. Why would he lie? Who would be lying to him?’’

``No idea.’’

Come on Willow, you are being dishonest again.

You raised the possibility that the Taoiseach was lying – and it IS a possibility, though I would submit that it is the least likely of the three. As you raised this possibility it is incumbent on you to develop this idea – otherwise you’re just playing with a dead bat. (And if that is the case, why do you even bother?)

It shouldn’t always take multiple posts before you deign to develop the points you make through implication. This strategy of (barely) plausible deniability is unique on Slugger and is the reason your intellectual honesty is so frequently questioned.