15 1 min 9 yrs

Now WHO would have thought this?

A convicted IRA bomber claimed that Gerry Adams had sanctioned a series of attacks on London in 1972, including the bombing of the Old Bailey, which killed one man and injured 200 more. The claims were made by a woman at the centre of a legal battle in America over testimony she gave to an academic research project into the Troubles.

Gerry Adams? In the IRA and authorising murder and mayhem? Surely not? And even IF this outrageous allegations were entirely true – cough – the peace processors out there will shrug and say time to move on…ignore the bloody fingerprints of the IRA monsters that killed SO many people and are now hailed as “heroes.” Meanwhile the victims lie in their graves, remembered only by their families.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

15 thoughts on “THE EVIL OF ADAMS…

  1. Interesting video, glenn.

    The problem is, nobody in NI will accept stories about Adam’s dark past from people who are his implacable enemies. Ed Moloney wasn’t able to get any neutral evidence even from people speaking “from the grave”

  2. I presume Adams always had more involvement than he ever acknowledged. He certainly served as an apologist for all kinds of horrible attacks. But those advocates of the war process ignore the gains that are in evidence today.

  3. Gains like the hammer blow to justice?

    Advocates of paying protection money celebrate the gains of being allowed to stay in business.

  4. Haven’t we been here a million times DV?

    As always I would suggest that anyone with any evidence of the guilt of this should take it to their nearest law-enforcement agency.

    Since nobody ever does it would appear none exits.


  5. Aileen – Justice for all was not exactly the practice in NI for quite some time. And Adams was never seriously prosecuted for the above crimes during the period before the Peace Process so I am uncertain where this nostalgia for The Troubles period is for those who are opposed to the Peace Process.

  6. Mahon

    The “Pease” process involved the totally disgusting release of terrorists from jail. Even if this was “all”that it was, it would be evil enough. Those who would approve protection money payments would wonder at he nostalgia of tose who don’t for a time when it would not be considered.

    The whole thing has made the world a much more dangerous place, as appeasement tends to. Other terrorists groups in other parts of the world have been encouraged by it. Bad bad stuff!

  7. //The whole thing has made the world a much more dangerous place//

    The people who designed it were probably thinking only of Northern Ireland, and the deal has made that a much safer place.

  8. Price’s problem is not that bombings took place but that they stopped. She blames Adams for the end of the violence and has an obvious political motivation for trying to damage him. How charming to see the newspapers who were most hostile to the peace process from day one getting down into the gutter with the dissidents. They attacked John Hume for talking to republicans who wanted peace and now they are working with those who want war.

    You could cal it an attack on the peace process but the process is too strong to be thrown of track by something like this. It looks more like mere personal vengeance. Imagine having someone in your life that you truly hated and knowing that there was a ready audience for any bad thing you could say about them. You’d want to be a saint to stick to the truth. I doubt I could but maybe Price is a saint.

  9. Aileen – The release of certain prisoners was difficult to accept. But not as difficult as the endless cycle of violence that has now come to an end.

  10. Gerry and Martin could do us all a favour and just do a straight no-holds-barred apology for the violence and mayhem caused, whether or not they were involved personally. They are figureheads for the PIRA/Sinn Fein.

    I do realise there have been a few carefully worded ‘apologies’ from the movement in the last ten years (eg. Bloody Friday), but I understand they only cover specific incidents and civilian casualties. Actually, to be fair, I think the reaction to these has been pretty dismissive by the British media – I had to do some digging to even find them.

    I guess the ‘grass roots’ (ie. ex-terrorists!) won’t let them do a full apology, even if they wanted to, because it would finally have made their whole campaign quite pointless.

    The Loyalists did a pretty good apology in 1994 for all their nasty and pointless killing (although I understand that they are still bickering amongst themselves and killing from time to time). Words AND deeds need to go together.

    A full IRA apology cannot change the past (who can?) but I believe it would make for a better future.

  11. Not a fan of Adams at all, but I think it will be hard to ever get anything to stick. As time goes by, it’ll simply be a case of his word against someone else’s.

  12. I think it’s cynically comicial to see hard line unionism jumping on every word of people like Sean O’Callaghan, Marian and Delores Price, Brendan Hughes etc in order to try to further it’s own agenda. Aren’t these the very bombers, gunmen etc that they rant about?

    Was Adams a senior member of the IRA? yeah, IMO he probably was but so what, you think that Adams is the only one with alleged blood on his hands? Didn’t avid Ervine say that he could tell the colour of the wall paper in all senior unionist’s living rooms? Why do you think that was?

    People in glass houses . . .

    Or is David Ervine’s word not credible because he was a bomber?

    I guess the ‘grass roots’ (ie. ex-terrorists!) won’t let them do a full apology, even if they wanted to, because it would finally have made their whole campaign quite pointless.

    And therein lies the crux of what unionism wants, abject humiliation remorse, mea culpa and sack cloth and ashes for every sin committed in the conflict.

    Know what? It’s not gonna happen.

    The IRA have apologised for the deaths of innocents and weither you agree with the veracity of the apology or not it’s there in the public domain.


    The Loyalists did a pretty good apology in 1994 for all their nasty and pointless killing

    Why is this considered “pretty good”

    In all sincerity, we offer to the loved ones of all innocent victims over the past twenty years, abject and true remorse. No words of ours will compensate for the intolerable suffering they have undergone during the conflict.

    Yet this is considered an ‘apology’?

    While it was not our intention to injure or kill non-combatants, the reality is that on this and on a number of other occasions, that was the consequence of our actions.
    It is, therefore, appropriate on the anniversary of this tragic event, that we address all of the deaths and injuries of non-combatants caused by us.

Comments are closed.