In an October Periscope column, Niall O’Dowd can be found making the same foundational error that unfortunately has long beset his commentary on the North of Ireland. His initial mistake, relying on the most dubious of sources for his information, leads to an unthinking right-down-the-line replication of the falsehoods the revisionists feed him.
Read More: Boston College Irish tapes - the truth about Ed Moloney’s book and letting the cat out of the bag
This is all the more unfortunate because the peace process, while a wet blanket as far as open discussion is concerned, being a stranger to principles such as those contained in the US First Amendment, is not an Iron Curtain. Its fallacies are not beyond the penetration of determined intellectual investigation. The Periscope, as its name suggests, should probe beyond not pander to. It just takes a bit of research. But hey, we don’t want to go there now do we? Research might just discover something that is not helpful to the peace process. And then the accusations of being out to get some prince of peace will fly Katyusha-style.
The Periscope-guided flak that has come my way is to be found in the utterly disingenuous allegation that I either currently function as or in the past have acted as a ‘dissident spokesman.’ While I will not complain that the Periscope is out to get me, it remains beyond its author to name one group on the dissident spectrum that I have been a spokesman for. I have always spoken for myself and no one else. But again pejorative labelling is a convenient device for smothering inconvenient voices.
Despite his protestations that Boston College’s Belfast Project was a hoax purpose-built to bamboozle Irish America, it is through the opaque vision panel of his Periscope that Irish American readers will glimpse less rather than more. Niall O’Dowd frequently alleges that the project was out to ‘get’ Sinn Fein caudillo Gerry Adams. Perhaps self-induced impaired vision prevents him from ever seeing why Adams might be considered worth ‘getting’ to begin with.
‘Getting’ the role of contentious figures at the heart of political violence such as Gerry Adams, Serbia’s Mlađo Radić and El Salvador’s Roberto D’Aubisson is a meritorious research endeavour. Their histories should always be sought, and where possible ‘got’, by researchers. It ceases to be meritorious only when research is pseudo, conducted for the purpose of a stitch up. There is nothing apart from Adams's own account of never having been in the IRA (even Niall O’Dowd refuses to believe that) which lends itself to the stitch up fiction.
A more egregious transgression than researchers ‘getting’ knowledge lies (pun intended) in constructing a falsified revisionist history that wilfully strives not to ‘get’ that knowledge, that for political rather than intellectual reasons airbrushes key figures out of their historical location by putting others in their place. Those inserted into the frame are, by deliberate calculation on the part of the revisionists, left to carry culpability for actions they did not wage, or if they did wage certainly did not do so alone.
Forgetting that ‘fools enter where brave men fear to tread’ O’Dowd relies on an interpretation by the implausible Danny Morrison to show that the Belfast Project was out to get former Provisional IRA army council member, Gerry Adams.
Morrison, better known in Irish America for flipping the bird at the reputation of the late Ted Kennedy whom he labelled a criminal, than for the quality of his mind, discovered ‘evidence’ contained in a conversation between Ed Moloney and the journalist Walt Ellis. The damning comment would appear to be "outing liars" which according to O’Dowd ‘by his very own words, meaning Adams, was Moloney’s main intent all along.’
Ironically, Niall O’Dowd ‘outed’ the same ‘liar’ that Moloney refers to when he dismissed Gerry Adams’ claims never to have been a member of the IRA.
It hardly follows that the Periscope is always and only ever raised in search of Adams. Shake it, move it, turn it upside down and inside out, try as we all might, it is a difficult one to spin ‘outing liars’ to the point where it explains the Belfast Project. Hence O’Dowd is reduced to saying that Moloney just ‘seems’ to admit it. Even an English judge from the 1970s would find it unseemly to convict on seem.
Without having any means of knowing O’Dowd has asserted that the only people interviewed for the Belfast Project were ‘IRA figures who hated Adams for various reasons.’ Again he would appear to rely on the unreliable Danny Morrison for this. Morrison, without providing one iota of supporting substance, has claimed the identities of the interviewees are well known in West Belfast. I would suggest only in those parts of West Belfast where it is also known that Gerry Adams was never a member of the IRA or where Morrison is known for the accuracy of his commentary, the reliability of his foresight and the length of his hair.
The problem in relying on Belfast revisionists like Danny Morrison is graphically depicted in a different context by a cartoon in the New Yorker. Up Periscope and take a long hard look.
15 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.Dixie Elliott | Nov 30, 2012, 02:12 PM EST
As I said patto69 have the guts to post these smears using your own name which I bet you won't. I use my own name, in fact I'll supply my full address if you wish. I'm Thomas Dixie Elliott from Derry City. It was Gerry Adams who first threw out the drink and mental health issues he claimed Brendan Hughes had. To counter this Ed Moloney produced a documentary showing that Brendan was quite capable when he spoke into these tapes. In that same documentary a former British soldier spoke highly of Brendan's courage. Then we have the likes of yourself springing up on several online sites using various fake names to regurgitate Adams' smears, no attempt even of being able to come up with your own arguments. I also notice you didn't attempt to refute one single thing I said below. No, you just threw out the Adams line on drink and drugs. I must say you lot have learnt a lot from the British in that regard.
patto69 | Nov 29, 2012, 06:22 AM EST
Elliott needs to ask himself how 'we' ended up in a position where people with obvious problems with drink and drugs are being used in a cynical and exploitative way.
seanomelb | Nov 28, 2012, 05:27 PM EST
If McGuinness was not in the IRA why was he and daithi O'Connell trying to procure cordex from Australia??
RedBranch | Nov 28, 2012, 04:09 PM EST
Well done IC for giving McIntyre the opportunity to respond. Dixie is on the money here. Its interesting to note that Adams has gone from demanding the British leave within six months (1972), to asking if we can have a border poll (2012). Ultimately though the British invested in him and McGuinness to deliver the IRA, which they duly did, more or less.
Dixie Elliott | Nov 27, 2012, 06:34 PM EST
As a former Blanket man who had the honour of sharing a cell during that time with Bobby Sands and Tom McElwee, I'm often left wondering how the hell we got from being able to endure all that the British threw at us to the present situation where Sinn Fein have become the most powerful propaganda weapon in the hands of Britain. The answer has to lie with that of the leadership. A leadership such as Gerry Adams who claims to have never been in the IRA. If that is the case then he was quite willing to urge others to do what he wasn't willing to do himself? With McGuinness he swore the war wouldn't end until the Brits had left but according to them they had either never been a part of that war, or had opted out, in McGuinness' case in 1974. Their role according to them was merely that of Agitators or inciters, a role similar to that of the bigots on the Unionist side. That those who once incited war now hail themselves as peacemakers has to be the greatest lie of all. How can you be a peacemaker now when you held in your hands the power to bring peace away back when the Good Friday Agreement was called the Sunningdale Agreement in 1973? I notice that those who throw the tout label at Anthony McIntyre or use the old alcohol slander against Brendan Hughes and Dolours Price haven't the courage to use their own names to do so but hide behind made up names. At least Anthony, Brendan and Dolours have or had the courage to say what they have or had to say publicly. That is the difference between themselves and those who attack them wearing the balaclavas of anonymity.
seanomelb | Nov 27, 2012, 06:14 PM EST
interesting article Cristoir. I wonder if Adams was dazzled by the bright lights of international fame when he sat down with Blair,Mitchell and Clinton and forgot the main game.
patto69 | Nov 27, 2012, 07:32 AM EST
More dishonesty dripping from the pen of Mc Intyre. Yet again he fails to address the question of why the only people who we part of the project were hostile to Adams? He and Baloney know that they wanted to have a ready supply of material to throw at Adams and SF without the authors of the various pieces being open to questioning or interrogation on their motives. Of the two people to date mentioned, Hughes and Price, both are known to have had problems with alcohol and at least one of them with drugs. Hardly a hook to hang an academic reputation on. A shameful and exploitative episode.
Buffalobrave | Nov 27, 2012, 06:48 AM EST
Seamus60: Anthony McIntyre has a Ph.D in history from Queens University Belfast. He has served 17 years in a British jail for IRA activities. So he knows a lot more than most on here about the issues. I support him 100%!
thetint | Nov 27, 2012, 03:19 AM EST
Not only is McIntyre acting the tout his pseudo-intellectual writing [worthy of a fourth former] is turgid to read.
Cristoir | Nov 26, 2012, 09:46 PM EST
Due to O'Dowd's permanent subversion of Ireland's sovereignty via his Smurfit-funded "Irish Voice newspaper" I canceled my subscription weeks after its publication began and never resumed it. O'Dowd's main role was in normalizing to Irish-America the sell-out to Britain of the Six Counties; the greatest surrender of national territory in history absent catastrophic military defeat. His and the Smurfits betrayal of Ireland and Irish-America were supported by the U.S. warmongers. How can we know this? On page 450 of Voices From the Grave, the taped voice of UVF leader David Irvine recounts his Washington D.C. visit. He had accused the U.S. of favoring the IRA. His words are; "The head of the Britain desk of the US State Dept replied; 'The IRA doesn't have Buccaneer bombers, it doesn't have aircraft carriers, and we need to sew up the British Exchequer so as to free up Britain's army for our upcoming wars.' We all looked at him, and he said; 'Islamic fundamentalism.' And that was 1994, and I was not alone; there are witnesses." So the U.S. gov't brought about Britain's victory in Ireland; as a merely preliminary step toward expansion of the U.S. empire. Events in Occupied Ireland today, all of Britain's unprosecuted massacres there, its ongoing tortures, its internments without charge, its restoration of corrupt Diplock, all are merely part of Britain's post-victory mop-up. Adams, McGuinness, and O'Dowd all played key roles in securing that British victory over the Irish.
seamus60 | Nov 26, 2012, 05:36 PM EST
He`s done the walk so believe him when he does the talk.
seanomelb | Nov 26, 2012, 04:57 PM EST
I don't know who this McIntyre fellow is. All I know is his ignorance is greater than his anti Irish rant.
pilib04 | Nov 26, 2012, 12:11 PM EST
Talk about "stitch up fiction", Anthony McIntyre's article is fiction based on fiction. Comparing Gerry Adams TD, to Major Roberto D'Aubisson of the Salvadoran Army who murdered Archbishop Oscar Romero is beyond the pale. Anthony McIntyre needs to get psychiatric help. At one time he was a patriot, now he is pathological in his hatred of Gerry Adams. His total involvement in the Boston College Fraud should have prefaced his so-called article in Irish Central. Not identifying his BC background does a disservice to the readership.
mactire | Nov 26, 2012, 12:02 PM EST
Apologies for typo - "his his" - in my post; can't see an edit button anywhere.
mactire | Nov 26, 2012, 10:15 AM EST
Anthony McIntyre has every right to express his opinion but its a shame that much of the above article descends into personal invective against Danny Morrison - the state of his his mind and a juvenile point about his hair. The article is poorly argued and tries to score points rather than provide evidence and, therefore, ends up effectively proving Niall O'Dowd's point. As for McIntyre's assertion that anti peace process viewpoints are suppressed? The "Voices From The Grave" television programme was lauded in the traditionally anti republican Irish media and received an award at the Irish Film and Television Awards. Go figure.