@Rocko has taken an all merciful hiding here
Anyone hear the lad from Boston College on the radio this morning? Fairly laid into Ed Moloney and Anthony McIntyre. They gave guarantees about confidentiality that they knew they couldnât stand over. And Moloney was first to publish of course, using the material for his book to drive home his agenda.
Ed meanwhile is speculating that Gerry decided to get himself arrested in a political stunt to disassociate himself from the McConville killing.
[QUOTE=âRocko, post: 941460, member: 1â]Anyone hear the lad from Boston College on the radio this morning? Fairly laid into Ed Moloney and Anthony McIntyre. They gave guarantees about confidentiality that they knew they couldnât stand over. And Moloney was first to publish of course, using the material for his book to drive home his agenda.
Ed meanwhile is speculating that Gerry decided to get himself arrested in a political stunt to disassociate himself from the McConville killing.[/QUOTE]
What channel?
RTĂ Morning Ireland
[QUOTE=âRocko, post: 941460, member: 1â]Anyone hear the lad from Boston College on the radio this morning? Fairly laid into Ed Moloney and Anthony McIntyre. They gave guarantees about confidentiality that they knew they couldnât stand over. And Moloney was first to publish of course, using the material for his book to drive home his agenda.
Ed meanwhile is speculating that Gerry decided to get himself arrested in a political stunt to disassociate himself from the McConville killing.[/QUOTE]
Whatâs Maloneyâs agenda Rocko?
Moloney is against the peace process.
He has an anti-SF bias. A particularly strong anti-Gerry Adams bias. It leads to him taking all sorts of contrary positions. He didnât seem to think it relevant to interview anyone from SF or who was pro-SF for his oral history project for example.
Have a read of Niall OâDowdâs last two articles on him.
Walter Mitty, Ed Moloney and Gerry Adams arresting himself
Ed Moloney was the co-founder of the Boston College Oral History Project on the Northern troubles. He, more than anyone, is the reason Gerry Adams is under investigation for the murder of Jean McConville 42 years ago.
For the project, Moloney chose the harshest anti-peace process Republican critics who hated Adams and his peace strategy to be interviewed. He promised their testimony would not be used until after they were dead. He misled them.
They spilt their bile on Adams, the Sinn Fein leader. But soon as two of the main interviewees died, to the surprise of Boston College, Moloney rushed out a money-making book of the interviews which slammed Adams and first brought about the interest of Northern police force, the PSNI.
Given that background, Moloney wrote a piece that defied logic in the Daily Beast yesterday, a Walter Mitty version of events that can only be described as delusional.
Nowhere in the piece did Moloney identify himself as the founder of the Boston College Oral History Project â and shame on the Daily Beast for not clarifying that.
In his piece, Moloney came up with an explanation for the Adams arrest so convoluted it defies all reason.
Gerry Adams, you see, did it to himself.
The headline reads âSinn Fein boss Gerry Adams wanted this murder bust.â
Moloney believes he got himself deliberately arrested, gambling that he would beat the rap and the McConville innuendo against him would be ended forever.
Here is what Moloney writes:
âThe McConville allegations have been like a monkey on his (Adamsâ) back for the best part of a decade. His party, Sinn FeinâIrish for âWe Ourselvesââis well placed to enter government in Dublin at the next election, but his opponents have a potent weapon to use against him: his alleged role in the disappearance of McConville. He badly needs to throw the monkey off his back, and that explains his extraordinary move in giving himself up to the police.â
One wonders what fevered condition produced that classic pronouncement, especially as Moloney also adds it was the biggest gamble of Adams career.
Bigger than getting an IRA ceasefire?
But wait, thereâs more.
Moloney also holds that he is now deeply worried about the peace process after doing his damndest to destroy it and Adams.
He states:
âThere is much more at stake than just Adamsâ freedom and reputation, however. He was the principal architect of the IRA peace strategy; without him the IRA would never have been maneuvered out of violence. If the British put him on trial, his hardline opponentsâ accusations of naivetĂ© or selling out will be justified and the peace process will be seriously undermined.â
Yes, seriously undermined, but by who originally Ed? Why not own up?
Moloney notes the American role which he has also been a fierce critic of. But the Daily Beast piece showed a kinder, gentler Ed as he backslides furiously to take the attention off himself.
âThe peace process in Northern Ireland is a monument to American diplomacy. Without the efforts of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, it is doubtful whether a power-sharing government would be in Belfast or whether IRA guns would not only have been silenced but destroyed. The peace process is testimony to the fact that with enough effort, jaw-jaw can prevail over war-war.â
Having done his best to destroy the peace process, he decides to try and fix the blame for the Adams arrest elsewhere.
Moloney first and foremost blames the Obama administration, which is indeed a factor, but it is a little like blaming the play for Lincolnâs assassination.
He writes, âIn all of this, the role of the Obama Justice Department has escaped the scrutiny that it deserves. The road to Adamsâ arrest began in May 2011, when the DoJ served subpoenas on Boston College on behalf of the British government without conducting due diligence.
âIn an affidavit to the Boston District Court justifying the subpoena seeking Priceâs interview with the college, U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz cited a Belfast Sunday newspaper report that claimed to have heard Priceâs tape admitting her part in McConvilleâs death.
âBut Price never mentioned the McConville killing in her interview for the archive, and a momentâs reflection would have revealed as nonsensical the idea that a Belfast newspaper, the equivalent of a supermarket tabloid in the United States, would be allowed access to such a secret, well-protected archive held by one of the countryâs most prestigious colleges. The police in Northern Ireland pulled the wool over Ortizâs and Attorney General Eric Holderâs eyes, and they did not even notice.â
Moloney concludes, âWhat a shame that a slipshod approach by the Obama administration to such a crucial issue has put it all at risk.â
No, Ed. The shame is that your hatred for Gerry Adams and the peace process led to the events of the past few days which could put Northern Ireland back on the brink.
Former Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward warned in The Guardian that the arrest of Adams marks one of the most âtense and potentially quite dangerousâ moments in the peace process.
As Adams recently stated, âIt is clear that the so-called Boston Oral History Project is an entirely bogus, shoddy and self-serving effort by those involved.
âThe idea for this project originated with Paul Bew, an advisor to David Trimble and was taken up by Ed Moloney and Anthony McIntyre, who conducted the interviews. Both are vitriolic critics and opponents of the Sinn FĂ©in peace strategy, of me in particular and of Sinn FĂ©in and its leadership.â
And now the chickens have come home to roost no matter how much Moloney tries to squawk otherwise.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/The-sad-case-of-Ed-Moloneys-shocking-delusions.html
The sad case of Ed Moloneyâs shocking illusions
Ed Moloney, founder of the now utterly discredited Boston College oral history tapes, has an interesting reaction to my article yesterday raising the point that it was a âGet Adamsâ initiative from start to finish.
He accused me of stealing articles from him in the 1990s for the Irish Voice rather than addressing the points I made and of opposing his writings because it was pro- Sinn Fein during that period
As an accusation it is laughable.
Here is what he wrote:
âNiall OâDowd founded the Irish Voice in 1987. Not long afterwards it was suggested to him that he might hire myself as his Belfast correspondent. This he refused to do, on the grounds that I was regarded as being far too close to the IRA. It is easy to forget these things but in those days Niall OâDowd would rather have been dead than be seen in the company of Gerry Adams and as for his sympathy for the North, well he always was very keen to get adverts from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.â
Actually Ed I had Gerry Adams on the cover of my newspaper The Irishman in San Francisco in 1983 after I spent a day with him in Belfast and as a cover story in Irish America Magazine, which I founded in 1985, long before I ever came across you.
I was the first to offer Gerry Adams a column in any publication worldwide at a time when he was banned everywhere as I saw how the efforts he was making for a new politics and peace had to be supported.
So thatâs that. Also Irish Voice has never had an ad from the Northern Irish Tourist Board in its life.
As to using your articles without attribution? Why on earth would I do that? I already had an Irish correspondent.
Didnât happen Ed and you know it; I really donât know what swamp you are dragging that nonsense up from. It is plucked out of thin air.
Sorry you have to feel you make up stories rather than stick to the truth.
You also know we let you go when we found you were trying to recycle old Sunday Tribune articles as fresh news to us when you eventually did contribute to Irish Voice.
No, the problem you had Ed was that you never got over the IRA calling a ceasefire without telling you.
You had the wrong information all the time and I tried to tell you that but you were so arrogant and in the know that you did not listen.
You may even remember a meeting in a Belfast hotel called Dukes where I brought a group of American business and labor leaders to meet with you and you went on about no possibility of a ceasefire and we were likely wasting out time. I told you then you had it all wrong and you were quite offended.
I donât think you ever forgave Sinn Fein for not taking you into their confidence and for you utterly misreading the situation. Youâve been on a âGet Gerryâ binge ever since.
Wrong then Ed and wrong now Ed.
To be fair @Rocko OâDowd has an agenda too, given that he sees himself as an architect of the peace process. There are very few without an agenda.
Niall OâDowd is Fergusâ brother so comes from FG stock. Amazing how someone would have to move away from Eire to get a worldy view like the one he has had for the past 20 years.
Adams came out today and restated this view that the killing was horrendous and unjustified.
I think OâDowd was instrumental in getting support from Irish America from the start. I donât believe he sees himself as an architect but he definitely had a part to play.
Yeah, I think thatâs fair. It doesnât preclude him from lifting the mask on Moloneyâs bias though.
Some Professor from Boston College History Department fairly tore into Moloney today on Morning Ireland.
I see this has already been discussed.
Look before you leap.
He who hesitates is lost.
whats your evidence for that other than the people who brutalised and butchered her claiming it to be true to justify that.
They went into the house and pulled her out of it. Did they ever produce the radio she is supposed to have had?
There isn`t a shred of credible evidence to support your theory
This wonât be settled until @twiceasnice97[/USER] gets a look at the radio. [USER=1537]@Horsebox, can you go ahead and arrange that please?
[QUOTE=âfarmerinthecity, post: 941318, member: 24â]You obviously have a problem with the taking of human life. Sometimes I fail to accept that the taking of human life is somehow justified because of being in a war situation. Surely it can never be justified? But the reality is that sometimes it is the only way to force change over a unjust situation that shows no signs of being changed through conventional discussion. It also is required to protect oneâs community when the forces of law and order cannot be trusted to do so.
Northern Ireland since itâs creation was a horrible cesspit of injustice. People were denied the right to vote because of their religion. Loyalists mobs roamed areas freely burning Catholics out of their homes with no intervention from a corrupt and sectarian police force. Those who fought back were thrown in jail without a trial. No loyalists suffered the same fate. Those who peacefully protested were shot dead by the army of the civilised nation which ruled.
Think about that for a second. Horrific, horrific stuff. Of course arguably the biggest injustice was the fact that these peopleâs, second class citizens in this âstateâ, only crime was allegiance to the State in which they lived. Not a âstateâ which was planted with some of the most horrible creatures in the history of mankind, but the 32 county Ireland. People say that the IRA had no mandate - how were they meant to get one when their supporters didnât have a vote.
Some brave people stood up. Some people may not call them brave but I do. They had an aim - restore a 32 county republic - just like those in 1916. In fact they were probably in a worse situation than those in 1916, they were living in horrible conditions and were seen as murderers by most of the 26 county âstateâ. But they gathered themselves into one of the most incredibly run and disciplined units against one of the most powerful armies in the world. So much so that in the mid 80s, Thatcher effectively surrendered in the security war and went into talks.
An army so committed and devout in its aims need to be run with ruthlessness. Otherwise, they wouldnât have lasted a year. The story which is said and I believe about Jean McConville was that she was an informer and was warned once by the IRA to stop, given her situation. The British Army targeted her again and when she was caught a second time then there was only one outcome. I donât know if I would say that I justify it, but I can certainly understand why it happened. Where I would point as much blame is to the British and the Loyalists in Northern Ireland who created an environment so shocking that people would go to such measures.[/QUOTE]
A well argued and well thought out post up to a point. i agree with a lot of this but certainly not all of it. The point where it falls down for me is the belief endemic in so many individuals that in order to defend anyone or anything done in the conflict you must defend everyone and everything.
The leadership of sinn fein who came through the conflict and created the peace we now enjoy are, to my mind, some of the greatest men ireland has ever produced. They found themselves in a corrupt bigoted state and decided to do something about it. I personally don`t believe adams about his ira membership sh1tology. he made some claims at a time he needed to in order to move the peace process onwards and now he is caught on that hook. So what, is my view on that
I also don`t believe he was involved in killing jean mcconville. He may have been in charge of the ira in that area but my guess is that the thugs who slaughtered her had it done before he knew a thing about it and he or whoever else was left to deal with the aftermath. The attempt to involve him was done by hughes and prcice who felt that adams was a traitor for negotiating the good friday agreement
You claim that you believe she was an informer and was warned to stop but she did it again and then was executed in the normal fashion. I dont buy that for a second and if you think about it yourself for any length of time in a rational way i dont think your gut will lead you astray.
The people claiming she was an informer had a vested interest in blackening her name. This was a woman who was assaulted by loyalists and who had a son in the IRA living in the middle of dangerous republicans who were threatening her.
It is far more likely that one of the scum that killed her who actually knew what the fuck was going on was informing and needed a scapegoat.
the brutality of the beating she received points to the fact that she did not admit she was an informer at all.
look you are clearly a barstool republican of the simplest kind. good luck to you but please don`t get involved when the grown ups a re talking
[QUOTE=âtwiceasnice97, post: 941557, member: 1061â]A well argued and well thought out post up to a point. i agree with a lot of this but certainly not all of it. The point where it falls down for me is the belief endemic in so many individuals that in order to defend anyone or anything done in the conflict you must defend everyone and everything.
The leadership of sinn fein who came through the conflict and created the peace we now enjoy are, to my mind, some of the greatest men ireland has ever produced. They found themselves in a corrupt bigoted state and decided to do something about it. I personally don`t believe adams about his ira membership sh1tology. he made some claims at a time he needed to in order to move the peace process onwards and now he is caught on that hook. So what, is my view on that
I also don`t believe he was involved in killing jean mcconville. He may have been in charge of the ira in that area but my guess is that the thugs who slaughtered her had it done before he knew a thing about it and he or whoever else was left to deal with the aftermath. The attempt to involve him was done by hughes and prcice who felt that adams was a traitor for negotiating the good friday agreement
You claim that you believe she was an informer and was warned to stop but she did it again and then was executed in the normal fashion. I dont buy that for a second and if you think about it yourself for any length of time in a rational way i dont think your gut will lead you astray.
The people claiming she was an informer had a vested interest in blackening her name. This was a woman who was assaulted by loyalists and who had a son in the IRA living in the middle of dangerous republicans who were threatening her.
It is far more likely that one of the scum that killed her who actually knew what the fuck was going on was informing and needed a scapegoat.
the brutality of the beating she received points to the fact that she did not admit she was an informer at all.[/QUOTE]
You might find the very odd informer who is somewhat reluctant to admit to it alright. I wonder why.
the extent of the beating she received is the issue which you are either deliberately or stupidly ignoring. If she was informing it wouldn`t have taken them smashing her senseless to get to the truth.