Inquiry into IRA Collusion

ishmael whale

I not sure that assigning DUP success to UUP disorganisation tells the full story. From their perspective the UUP’s leadership have taken risks to in an attempt to secure progress and those risks have not paid off. If the Sinn Fein and IRA leadership had taken similar risks they might be showing a similar level of ‘disorganisation’. It seems a little unfair to describe Trimble as lacking strong leadership, but on the other hand absolve Sinn Fein from taking positions that would cause significant disunity among republicans.

Some of this is past history, but the outcome is that the greater part of unionist opinion is now represented by the DUP rather than UUP. In the past NI could not be regarded as a democratic society. Whether it will be a democratic society in the future depends, to a significant extent, on the ability of nationalists to address the concerns of unionists. Replacing a state that tried to bludgeon nationalists into submission with one that tries to bludgeon unionists is hardly an option.

It might have been easier to secure progress while UUP was the larger party, but that option is now gone.

Mighty_Mouse

"It seems a little unfair to describe Trimble as lacking strong leadership, but on the other hand absolve Sinn Fein from taking positions that would cause significant disunity among republicans."

I disagree. I honestly believe Trimble has been weak and I dont think he has handled his half of the peace process very well.

I just feel he is too much of a political animal whose short term actions keep him popular.
E.g media & social pressure on the IRA he completely misguides republicans and gets them to say "war is over" in return for nothing. (return to government is all that was wanted).
Short-term = election (wornd there david)
Long-term = completly rocks the process and the decade of relationships built up between the two sides

E.g hand in hand with Paisley down Drumcree/Gervaghey rd.
Short-term - gets a cheer from the crowd
Long-term - oops David is that the DUP i see passing you out!

E.g Peace Process -
Short-term = nobel price (joke!)
Long-term = completely backs out of something he signed up to!

I could go on forever about the inadequacies of his leadership. To sum up in this process I feel he hasnt worked towards the long term goal - of a democratic goverment.

The positions you say caused significant disorganisation within the UUP party are in fact - the good friday agreement!!
Did Sinn Fein not have to contend with similar disorganisation - 32 county claim etc
but they handled it with strong leadership. Clear decisions, clear goals, etc

What other position could Sinn Fein have taken to cause disorganisation within republicanism?
Decommissioing? - its completely ridiculous to continue discussing complete decommissing etc (impossible) or the IRA specifying exactly how many bullets disarmed etc cso it wont happen and theres no reason why it should.

Remember as Ive said throughout - no cease fire by any other terrorists organisation, militarisation of NI , a name change in the RUC is not enough, and a government which Tony Blair pulls apart every time the Unionist cant get out of a hole.

Remember also - Sinn Feins line all along has been that there is room for everyone in NI. Unionists culture has a place in NI and will always be respected in any government/republic

ishmael whale

The key point is we’ve lost unionist opinion. We can argue about why. I honestly feel Trimble has had a more difficult path to thread and has taken more risks than others, but I accept others will not share this.

At the start the Good Friday Agreement had overwhelming support from nationalists North and South, but there was a clear division in unionism. If memory serves the Northern Ireland count results were presented in amalgamated form in an attempt to hide any analysis of who had voted what way, but the essential picture was that while there was almost unanimity among nationalists unionists were at least split or at worst against the Agreement.

We can play with this whatever way we like, but if all of us from Fine Gael to Sinn Fein could vote for the agreement and unionism split then the objective truth is that it conforms to our idea of a fair solution but not theirs. We can vent a lot of spleen over their attitude to compromise, and complain that its all their fault. Then we have to come home to finding a solution.

The IRA would presumably claim to advance the interest of the Irish people, rather than their own sectional interest. The sacrifice required of them now is not something that cuts a striking image on a wall mural. They could do us all a favour by showing us the true meaning of self sacrifice and disband.

Mighty_Mouse

"We can vent a lot of spleen over their attitude to compromise, and complain that its all their fault. Then we have to come home to finding a solution."

Agreed because its something I said earlier in a reverse context. Solution and political progress are the most important thing here. But what can you do when the other party wont play ball.

I can see the IRA disbanding. They serve no purpose any more. I dont think it will happen until there has been significant movement on militarisation, patten. I think republicans would also like to see significant movement towards a government which cant be whipped out everytime one party refuses to cooperate.

ireton

Mighty Mouse - the IRA were defeated - if the IRA thought they could get away with genocide any longer with out paying a heavy, heavy price then that is what they would still be doing - if they thought it could get them a United Ireland - (which you or any of your descendents will never see, trust me - i'm still here) then they would still be at war. We can tell the southerners a thing or two about the provies - they only respond to fear and the big stick - don't think you can trust them like the sdlp - unless you want gangland rule.

Mighty_Mouse

"Mighty Mouse - the IRA were defeated -"

???????????????
How did you come to this conclusion?
Mind you im not saying that the IRA shouldnt be on cease-fire, pursue a political strategy solely.


"if the IRA thought they could get away with genocide any longer with out paying a heavy, heavy price then that is what they would still be doing -"

Look up you definition of genocide there. But I would think that the IRA would of being able to continue their campaign as long as they wanted to.


"if they thought it could get them a United Ireland - (which you or any of your descendents will never see, trust me - i'm still here) then they would still be at war."

I disagree. A united Ireland will happen in my life-time. it will be a united Ireland in which the unionists culture is respected and embraced as part of society.

Remember that the IRA's campaign was tied up with civil rights also many of which have been achieved.

Do you believe that the nationalists/republicans community were treated equally before the troubles?


"We can tell the southerners a thing or two about the provies - they only respond to fear and the big stick - "

I disagree. What fear and big stick drove the IRA to cease fire! They had been at war for 30 yrs, hunger strikes, huge losses to both members of the IRA, GAA and nationalists community. ie the had endured .

The IRA was not beaten to submission as you think but enticed to peace


"don't think you can trust them like the sdlp - unless you want gangland rule."

My point exactly. I can understand why the SDLP are so popular amongst unionists!!!
They never stand strong on ANY point. Join a police board to try and change the sectarian police force from within !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (what BS)

SDLP hate the Sinners as much as any unionist!

ishmael whale

In fairness to the SDLP, I don’t think anyone holds Sinn Fein in much esteem apart from their own supporters. The rest of us just pragmatically recognise that they attract a significant amount of support, and therefore need to be included.

As to the ‘achievements’ of the IRA campaign, while there is little to be gained by raking over old coals (and hopefully we stop this retrospection before we get back to Strongbow) it should be clear that it is mostly only Sinn Fein supporters who would see the armed struggle as something that was part of the solution rather than something that was part of the problem.

Going forward, we can only feel a sense of unease that the IRA seem unaware of their own redundancy.

Mighty_Mouse

"In fairness to the SDLP, I don’t think anyone holds Sinn Fein in much esteem apart from their own supporters."

In fairness to the SDLP, by the looks of the last election, not many nationalists holding them in high regards!


"The rest of us just pragmatically recognise that they attract a significant amount of support, and therefore need to be included."

Kind of ye to include us!
This whole democracy craic can be such a bitch sometimes!


"As to the ‘achievements’ of the IRA campaign, while there is little to be gained by raking over old coals (and hopefully we stop this retrospection before we get back to Strongbow)

I realise this but was responding to an above comment


"it should be clear that it is mostly only Sinn Fein supporters who would see the armed struggle as something that was part of the solution rather than something that was part of the problem."

(had a response but thought better of it)

"Going forward, we can only feel a sense of unease that the IRA seem unaware of their own redundancy."

they must recognise their own redundacy because their campaign is over, permenantly. Started disarming etc. They will disband in the future but Im not sure the correct climate exists

ishmael whale

With respect, I don’t see much of substance in your last response. It seems structured to avoid recognising that Sinn Fein support for the IRA puts it into splendid isolation among nationalists North and South. Maybe you feel that only results within Northern Ireland count. In that case I think you’ll find the other crowd have a majority, which leaves you even further out on a limb.

I have no difficulty in acknowledging that the only reason for dealing with Sinn Fein’s is their electoral significance, and that this is a pragmatic response as in normal circumstances a private army would simply not be tolerated. As we have agreed, we are not operating under normal circumstances and mainstream parties have taken a considerable step in recognising this. If Sinn Fein and the IRA could take as large a step out of their world we might get somewhere.

Victor

Originally posted by ishmael whale
I have no difficulty in acknowledging that the only reason for dealing with Sinn Fein’s is their electoral significance

There is also the matter of conflict resolution and SF are posssibly second last in that league, just before the DUP.

Some involuntary IRA decommissioning.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/2320223?view=Eircomnet

Gardai to destroy hundreds of crime guns
From:ireland.com
Friday, 9th January, 2004

Gardai will this morning destroy hundreds of guns seized in the Republic over the past 15 years.

More than 800 firearms seized from criminal and paramilitary groups will be broken up at an industrial premises in Dublin.

The cache includes heavy sub-machine guns, hand guns, Kalashnikov AK-47 rifles, a number of rocket propelled grenade launchers and sawn-off shotguns.

The metal recovered from the destruction of the weapons will be melted down and sent to Ohio, in America, where it will form part of a peace fountain.

Garda Commissioner Tony Hickey will oversee the break-up of the weapons.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Originally posted by daveirl
Why do they wait 15 years?

I suspect they just never bothered doing it for that long and the room was full :rolleyes:

Mighty_Mouse

"There is also the matter of conflict resolution and SF are posssibly second last in that league, just before the DUP."

Thats just not true


"More than 800 firearms seized from criminal and paramilitary groups will be broken up at an industrial premises in Dublin. "

not just IRA arms

"Why do they wait 15 years? "

Does it matter. They werent used for 15 yrs. Is that not the important thing.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Mighty_Mouse

"These weren't decommissioned so don't make it sound like it was the IRA being all nice. These were seized weapons"

Sorry. I don't follow where you are coming from here Dave.
How did I make it sound like the IRA were being nice?

My point was: If the weapons were in Gardai custody (for 15 yrs) why does it matter if they weren't decommisssioned. Do all weapons that enter Gardai custody have to be decommissioned immediately???

Personally I don't think so. As long as the weapons are out of circulation and not used then is that not the point. Being in Gardai custody is enough for me. I dont't worry what happens after the Gardai seize them.

I think you are completely missing the point of decomissioning. And again. They werent just IRA arms.

Victor

The flip side

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/2339442?view=Eircomnet

Judge Cory tells families he backs inquiries on killings
From:ireland.com
Tuesday, 13th January, 2004

Retired Canadian judge Peter Cory has gone over the head of the British government to inform the families of Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright that he has recommended independent inquiries into their killings. Gerry Moriarty, Northern Editor, reports.

Judge Cory was so annoyed at the British government's delay in releasing his reports into the controversial killings that he personally contacted the families yesterday to tell them of his recommendations.

Judge Cory informed the families that he urged the British government to hold inquiries into the killings of solicitors Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson, Portadown man Robert Hamill, and Loyalist Volunteer Force leader Billy Wright.

The British government has cited a series of legal reasons for not publishing the reports into the Finucane, Nelson, Hamill and Wright killings.

"The prime minister has made it clear that we will publish the reports as soon as the legal position is complete," said a British spokesman last night.

All the families welcomed Judge Cory's personal actions. Solicitor Mr Michael Finucane, son of Pat Finucane who was murdered in front of his family by the UDA in 1989 with alleged security force collusion, said Judge Cory told him he was motivated in his actions primarily by reasons of humanity and fairness to the families.

"I got a call from Judge Cory out of the blue about 3.30 [p.m.]," said Mr Finucane. "He said he had informed the Northern Ireland Office that he was going to make the families aware of the bottom line in his report because he felt it was the humane thing to do."

Judge Cory told the families of his recommendations but did not go into the detail of his report. Mr Finucane said the British government's stance on the report indicated that he could have little faith that it would order an independent and impartial inquiry - the British has made a commitment to abide by the judge's recommendations.

"I don't think the concepts of independence and impartiality are compatible with how the British government does its business," said Mr Finucane.

"I think the fact that Judge Cory felt compelled to contact us shows up the British government as being, at the very least, guilty of bad faith and, at worst, duplicity and lies," he added.

Mr Finucane described Judge Cory as a man of "unquestionable integrity". But Mr Finucane said he was concerned that if an inquiry were called the British government would attempt to restrict its remit.

In December, the Irish Government accepted Judge Cory's recommendation for an independent inquiry into the IRA murders of two senior RUC officers, Chief Supt Harry Breen and Supt Bob Buchanan, close to the Border in 1989.

Johnny 5

Originally posted by ishmael whale
I not sure that assigning DUP success to UUP disorganisation tells the full story. From their perspective the UUP’s leadership have taken risks to in an attempt to secure progress and those risks have not paid off. If the Sinn Fein and IRA leadership had taken similar risks they might be showing a similar level of ‘disorganisation’. It seems a little unfair to describe Trimble as lacking strong leadership, but on the other hand absolve Sinn Fein from taking positions that would cause significant disunity among republicans.

Sorry what?

Sinn Féin and the IRA haven't taken any risks? Your having a laugh. Remember the 'not a bullet, not an ounce', 'never in stormont', 'no ceasefire' speeches Brian Keenan was so 'keen' to make about ten years ago.

The SF leadership and the IRA have been taking nothing but risks for the past 5 years. What is the only paramilitary organisation to have given up a 'large proportion' of its weaponry? What organisation apologised to the civilians its campaign killed? What political party took their seats for the first time in Stormont despite grassroots disillusions?

As for the UUP's 'risks', name them please.

I'm only now remembering why I don't visit this place that often, I forgot you lot and your pro-loyalist stance.

gurramok

Originally posted by Johnny 5
I'm only now remembering why I don't visit this place that often, I forgot you lot and your pro-loyalist stance.

SShhh, its the D4 stance

ishmael whale

I can ignore the pointless labelling. You know as well as I do that smugly chipping in comments like ‘pro-loyalist’ and ‘Dublin 4’ adds nothing to the debate. I would point out that in his haste to disagree Johnny5 has misquoted me as saying the IRA have taken no risks. I have actually said they have taken lesser risks, a considerable difference. I take it he will amend his contribution on foot of this correction. However, if people disagree with what I’m saying, I would like to see some alternative suggestion as to how they see things proceeding from here.

As I’ve already acknowledged, opinions of Trimble will vary. The key point is that the Agreement from the start has been acceptable to nationalists of all hues and has lacked consensus among unionists. One significant stumbling block has been how to handle the disbandment of the IRA. In this debate there seems to be consensus that the IRA is redundant. Is there any reason for it not to simply dissolve itself, apart from some perception that this causes them to lose face? Is this pride really consistent with service to the nation?

Sometimes people need to see that the best contribution they can make is to go.

bonkey

Originally posted by Johnny 5
I forgot you lot and your pro-loyalist stance.

I'm trying to remember if there's a single thread on this forum which you have 'contributed' to without feeling obliged to bring this one up. A quick search failed to find one.

If you're actually interested in any of the discussions you post in then I'd suggest that simply being deliberately abusive in the manner of a broken record isn't a particularly good way of doing things.

Unless, of course, you're simply trying to stir things up.

jc

Mighty_Mouse

I guarantee that if the IRA came out and stated we disband. Unionists would still have a problem with it. They would push for a 10 year period or something to 'make sure', they would continue to pursue decommissionig or find some/any reason to tear the thing down again and again.

I actually think thats its impossible to get unionists to act proactively and make a go of the 'Good Friday' agreement. The ony way forward is to keep reducing their excuses and try and get some work done while they think of another. This way slowly Sinn Fein will edge towards a united Ireland.

Unionists wont play ball. Every piece of history which precedes us shows it. Ultimate solitions dont exist because unionists will always want power and to be part of britain, republicans wont.

It think even if they agreed to a working democracy for a few years though we might get somewhere.

The IRA have said the war is over, apologises, 10 year cease fire

---

lads in fairness there were two sides commitong attrocities during the troubles. The unionists dont have a leg to stand on for not being in government imo




Did anyone see Prime Time (i think)? last night

ishmael whale

I recently found a French survey on the internet which asked drivers for their opinion as to the main cause of car accidents. The results amounted to ‘the other guy’. It came to mind while I was reading the comment “Unionists wont play ball. Every piece of history which precedes us shows it.”, along with a memory of a Free Presbyterian Minister saying that he welcomed Catholics to his services before pausing and adding “converted Roman Catholics, of course.”

Maybe nothing can be done. Maybe, through the people most directly impacted finding they collectively can’t get it together, the whole thing will fail. Maybe all we have to look forward to is a round of recrimination about how the other guy caused the breakdown followed by the continuation of a dirty little conflict between various granfalloons.

“The only way forward is to keep reducing their excuses” can be read in two ways. It might mean ignoring unionists and hoping they go away, a policy that has no obvious successful precedents either here or in other far more troubled spots. Or it might mean noticing that the continued existence of the IRA is something that unionists seem concerned at, and by disbanding the IRA would contribute quite a bit to excuse reduction. I could agree with this second interpretation, but sadly I don’t think that’s what you mean.

For anyone not aware of the term "A granfalloon is a proud and meaningless association of human beings." --Kurt Vonnegut

Mighty_Mouse

"I recently found a French survey on the internet which asked drivers for their opinion as to the main cause of car accidents. The results amounted to ‘the other guy’."

Come now - are honestly suggesting that what Ive said is "the other guy sydrome"!!!! Is it so difficult to be openly critical of unionists participation in the Peace Process todate.

"look forward to is a round of recrimination about how the other guy caused the breakdown"

Weve had this

---

several times!

"Or it might mean noticing that the continued existence of the IRA is something that unionists seem concerned at, and by disbanding the IRA would contribute quite a bit to excuse reduction"

The problem is that the goal of Irish republicans should not be to reduce Unionist excuses not to participate in a democracy. Its completely crazy for people to suggest this and not see a problem with draggin Unionists into a democratic goverence.

Its what is happening at the moment but its not what should be happening.Its the only way we have managed to get this far. But its a crazy situation.

I guarantee. Im 100% sure that whatever the IRA/Sinn Fein do in the north. Unionists will carry on with inventing problems to slow up the peace process. look at teh way the sold Sinn Fein a dummy. Got teh "war is over" and gave nothin in return. Real sneaky the way they did it. They clearly are not interested in democratic governance

Johnny 5

Agreed. They have no interest in power sharing with "fenians" under any circumstances. And don't come out with that 'other guy' crap. As Mighty_Mouse said, it is very hard to criticize Unionists openly, evident in this forum.

It's a case of.

Victor

Originally posted by Johnny 5
As Mighty_Mouse said, it is very hard to criticize Unionists openly, evident in this forum.

Can you give us some quotes?

Originally posted by Johnny 5
It's a case of.

Are you telling us you are up the pole, bun in the oven, in the family way? What?

Johnny 5

lol :rolleyes:

I couldn't be arsed going to get quotes, but like bonkey said, I do say this alot, and a search under my username will bring up relevant threads.

Can you imagine a thread of a similar fashion, correctly blaming the unionists for the halted peace process, can you envisage someone coming out with that 'other guy syndrome' stuff? It'd never happen here.

There are a small number of people on here, who have their eyes open to the problem, and we're being lambasted for it.

I'm first to admit the IRA aren't saints, but I didn't say they were, but I take issue with the constant one sided ness, the 'unionists can do no wrong', 'must be all them shinners faults' posts.

ishmael whale

What I take from the last few posts from Johnny 5 and Mighty Mouse is ‘don’t hit us with that other guy’s fault stuff because we find it difficult to refute.’ All the time the real issue is how you see things proceeding from here, which you see to have nothing to say about.

Mighty Mouse, in your post of 14-01-2004 13:25 you say:

“I actually think thats its impossible to get unionists to act proactively and make a go of the 'Good Friday' agreement. The ony way forward is to keep reducing their excuses and try and get some work done while they think of another.”

Then in your last post you say

“The problem is that the goal of Irish republicans should not be to reduce Unionist excuses not to participate in a democracy.”

Can you explain this apparent inconsistency?

bonkey

Originally posted by Johnny 5
Can you imagine a thread of a similar fashion, correctly blaming the unionists for the halted peace process, can you envisage someone coming out with that 'other guy syndrome' stuff? It'd never happen here.

Now, see, thats just complete crap. I'd put it more politely, but to be quite honest I couldn't be bothered given your broken-record approach to simply demeaning the discussions on this forum because people tend not to agree with your beliefs 100%.

There have been no end of threads which have "happened here" where exactly that has happened. You seem to confuse the general attitude of "we do not support acts of terrorism by the IRA and other republicans" to mean "we support the loyalists". Its kinda the same ridiculous logic that Herr Bush has been using the past two years with his "with us or against us" propaganda.

I'm the first to stand up and say that over the past decade, the republican movement has managed a brilliant coup, in that they have gone from being the ones constantly blamed for refusing to negotiate to the ones who are being refused negotiation at every turn.

As such, it is unquestionable that the more culpable group - in terms of the stalled process - at the moment is the Unionists. However, the key point there is "at the moment". I'm pretty sure that if the Unionists wised up a bit and played the same game, the Republicans would very quickly show that they are not quite as flexible and willing to negotiate and compromise as they try to show.

But, see, as soon as you get into that discussion, someone will post up that Sinn Fein et al all have terrorist links, and therefore should not be allowed into a democratic environment....at which point someone will try defending or justifying the terrorism, for which they will get verbally beaten into a pulp.

You see this as "pro-loyalist", but I'm pretty sure that if you tried defending any other terrorist groups from any other part of the world, you'd get the same verbal trouncing....

But I guess its easier to just make nice inaccurate generalisations rather than have to stand up for your convictions.

jc

Johnny 5

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm pretty sure that if the Unionists wised up a bit and played the same game, the Republicans would very quickly show that they are not quite as flexible and willing to negotiate and compromise as they try to show.

This is exactly what i'm getting at, your speculating with no evidence. Your saying yes, the problems at the minute are caused by unionism, but you can rest assured republicans will eventually throw a spanner in the works for good.

It can never be point blank someone's fault here on this board, it always has to be the Unionists AND the republicans, but I wonder would it be the same the other way round.

Could someone point me in the way of the discussion on the Dublin-Monaghan bombings?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.