13 Mar '15 02:39>
This post is unavailable.
Please refer to our posting guidelines.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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).
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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."
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."