It is time for the IRA to disband.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

monument

Originally posted by Cork
The Official Unionsts seem to be getting out of the review of the good friday agreement because of doubts over SF/IRA.

I really think that if the SF/IRA wanted to build trust with the unionist population in Northern Ireland - they have made an absolute mess of things.

As the facts stand there is currently more illegal action by unionists then republicans, including violent action.

"The Official Unionsts" want to get out of the review of good friday agreement because they never wanted unionsts to be in it in the first place.

But you, and others, continue to highlight the republican action while ignoring unionists, is there some reason for this?

monument

Originally posted by daveirl
Well from my point of view it's because the loyalists aren't running candidates in my country let alone my consituency. So basically I'm not too pushed. Loyalist violence happens in a different country as far as I'm concerned and is equivalent to gang warfare in LA or something.

And if Adams wasn't in the IRA, why on the BBC/RTE "End game in Ireland" documentary did he allude to it numerous times saying "we made a bad decision" etc. I'm shocked that people don't accept that Adams and McGuinness were/are IRA members, I thought that had been cleared up a couple of years back!

When someone gives us proof, or when Addams confesses it, well believe it. Untill then could you stop presenting assumption as fact?

Your example of him saying "we made a bad decision", is as I have said him talking about, or for, the IRA, or maybe republicans in general.

mneylon

Originally posted by daveirl
Loyalist violence happens in a different country as far as I'm concerned and is equivalent to gang warfare in LA or something.

So Belfast isn't Ireland as far as you are concerned?

mike65

Originally posted by blacknight
So Belfast isn't Ireland as far as you are concerned?

Daveirl like me and a few others here likes Ireland so much he's glad there are two of them! Belfast in UK last time we checked.

Mike.

monument

Originally posted by mike65
Daveirl like me and a few others here likes Ireland so much he's glad there are two of them! Belfast in UK last time we checked.

The UK is not a country the last time I checked.

Hmm… the last time I checked it was a part of the leftovers of a collection of regions in a empire - would that mean it’s a old colony? For some reason - a lot of people dismiss this, despite history confirming it.

Hmm… when was Hong Kong original taken from the Chinese? They were entitled to that back but we are not the rightful owners of Northern Ireland? Very strange.

Cork

Originally posted by monument

Hmm… when was Hong Kong original taken from the Chinese? They were entitled to that back but we are not the rightful owners of Northern Ireland? Very strange.

Articles 2 & 3 were there for years. Where did it get the people in Northern Ireland?

The future of NI - is up to the people of NI.

The continued existance of the IRA is an insult to the people of Ireland who voted for the Good Friday Agreement.

The continued existance of this group does not build bridges between nationalists and unionists.

The SDLP were correct over the period of that the IRA were active.

What role has the IRA to play in the Peace Process - but to disband.

gurramok

Originally posted by mike65
Daveirl like me and a few others here likes Ireland so much he's glad there are two of them! Belfast in UK last time we checked.

Mike.

As lingo or pointing it out as pc speak ?
tbh, i have hardly heard anyone refer as 1st preference choice of lingo as Belfast, uk.
It's being either 'belfast, n.ireland', 'belfast, up north', the uk variation being last resort

Sparks

Originally posted by monument
Hmm… when was Hong Kong original taken from the Chinese?

Wasn't it leased rather than taken?

Moriarty

Originally posted by monument
The UK is not a country the last time I checked.

Afaik the UK is internationally recognised as a sovereign country.

Originally posted by monument
Hmm… the last time I checked it was a part of the leftovers of a collection of regions in a empire - would that mean it’s a old colony? For some reason - a lot of people dismiss this, despite history confirming it.

Yup, just like Scotland and Wales. Also like a number of states in the US and similar things across the world. Whats your point?

Originally posted by monument
Hmm… when was Hong Kong original taken from the Chinese? They were entitled to that back but we are not the rightful owners of Northern Ireland? Very strange.

Hong Kong was leased for 99 years to the UK from 1898.

Gearoid

Posted by Daveirl

Well from my point of view it's because the loyalists aren't running candidates in my country let alone my consituency. So basically I'm not too pushed. Loyalist violence happens in a different country as far as I'm concerned and is equivalent to gang warfare in LA or something.

Your history is slipping up badly, Remember Dublin and Monaghan bombings?!, worst single day of the troubles and don't you rember the loyalist threats that if the troubles resume they will bring the war to the republic?, they're not as far away as you would like to think.
And no as someone else said they are NOT in a different country, Belfast is in Ireland, the country, it is in UK the state but again like I said it means nothing, a short journey in a car and they are in this jurisdiction to do what they want. Keep that in mind when u decide to post more of the above arrogance.

Posted by Daveirl

I'm shocked that people don't accept that Adams and McGuinness were/are IRA members, I thought that had been cleared up a couple of years back!

Maybe because people understand whats meant by "innocent until proven guilty", until u know don't judge.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Gearoid
And no as someone else said they are NOT in a different country, Belfast is in Ireland, the country, it is in UK the state

Belfast is in Northern Ireland, which is a state/province/whatever of the UK. Belfast is in the UK state. State == Country == State.

Gearoid

Belfast is in Northern Ireland, which is a state/province/whatever of the UK. Belfast is in the UK state. State == Country == State.

State does not equal country. Country is a geographic or national thing. State is used to describe a political entity. By your reasoning u could argue that Ireland is not an Island!

Moriarty

state
adj.
Of or relating to a body politic or to an internally autonomous territorial or political unit constituting a federation under one government

coun·try
n.
A nation or state.
The territory of a nation or state; land.
The people of a nation or state; populace

Exact same thing in this context.

mike65

Just on the Hong Kong thing, Hong Kong island was ceeded perminantly to the UK but HK would'nt be viable without the Kowloon Peninsula (New Territories) which were on lease (after been grabed in the second Opium war) so the agreement reached in 1984 was to hand the lot over as one.

Mike.

sceptre

Originally posted by Gearoid
Keep that in mind when u decide to post more of the above arrogance.

Cute

And no as someone else said they are NOT in a different country, Belfast is in Ireland, the country, it is in UK the state but again like I said it means nothing, a short journey in a car and they are in this jurisdiction to do what they want.

Under a literal reading of the original article 2 and 3, Belfast would have fallen under the category of being in a disputed territory, de jure part of Ireland under Irish law and de jure part of the UK under UK law. The ruling in the McGimpsey case in the late 80s, as ruled upon by the Irish Supreme Court, established that the territorial claim under Article 2 was aspirational.

De facto, Belfast is part of the UK.

Following the amendment to Bunreacht na hEireann as part of the Good Friday agreement, the claim, aspirational or otherwise, was dropped in a legal sense.

Hence the best you can assert is that Belfast is part of the Irish country in the minds of the people who want it to be, part of the Irish country in a moral sense, part of the Irish country in a historical sense that might or might not be applied to the current dispute, part of the Irish nation (which would be interpreted in a legal sense as being distinct from the Irish country or state) or anything else apart from a legal claim made as of right by a sovereign state as the Irish State has dropped the remnants of its legal claim as of right to the north-east part of this island.

Stop drawing a line between "country" and "state". In the sense of international law, the two terms are "state" and "nation". One is legal, the other in a legal sense is merely descriptive. If you meant "country" to be the former, I've dealt with it above. If you meant "country" to be the lattter, I've ignored it above as in a legal sense it doesn't give a group of people locus standi.

Luxembourg city is a short car ride from the Belgian, French and German borders as well.

To add to Mike's post about HK, the reason HK would not have been viable without the New Territories is that all the waterworks are there.

everythinglive

of course the IRA are still out there. but i think their original views are still there somewhere and they have my full support!

The Brigadier

The IRA have your full support? How would you feel if they killed your family?

Support for any terrorist organisation is something I find abhorent.

Cork

Gerry Adams has yet again called on the Irish Government to release the killers of Gerry McCabe in Adare.

Yet - the illegal army that his party has links to has still arms and carrying out punishment beatings.

I hope that the SDLP get their act together & partys down here will start showing some bottle aganist SF/IRA.

Gearoid

De facto, Belfast is part of the UK.

Yes it is and the UK is a state, a political entity. I was saying that while the UK has juristiction over the north it doesn't suddenly mean that Belfast is not in Ireland, Ireland is as anyone will tell u, an Island it's a place not a political thing.

sceptre

Originally posted by Gearoid
Ireland is as anyone will tell u, an Island it's a place not a political thing.

I suppose I fall into the set of "anyone" so...

Ireland is at least two things: the name of an island (as in "Hispaniola") and the name of a country (as in "Dominican Republic" or "Haiti"). That's what we chose to call our country (as in "state"). Hence it's both "not a political thing" AND "a political thing". The question of the indivisibility of an island is part of the rhetoric that's been tossed around like confetti for much of the last century.

Nevertheless I've dealt with that and would consider the sane part of that off-topic discussion closed.

"Anyone" would have been confused by your original posting, assuming that what you meant was contained in the newer post from which I've quoted, the minute you used the word "jurisdiction" (which is a pretty precise legal term not to be confused with the length of a journey to take accompanied by a packet of sandwiches and a flask of tea)

monument

Originally posted by sceptre
Ireland is at least two things: the name of an island (as in "Hispaniola") and the name of a country (as in "Dominican Republic" or "Haiti"). That's what we chose to call our country (as in "state"). Hence it's both "not a political thing" AND "a political thing". The question of the indivisibility of an island is part of the rhetoric that's been tossed around like confetti for much of the last century.

Nevertheless I've dealt with that and would consider the sane part of that off-topic discussion closed.

On both points I agreed with you, I was wrong before.

monument

Originally posted by Cork
Yet - the illegal army that his party has links to has still arms and carrying out punishment beatings.

I wonder who is carring out more punishment beatings and rising?

It would be the same people - when it comes to the wrongs they do - you are blind to?

"Loyalist violence rising
In answer to a question from Iris Robinson, security Minister Jane Kennedy has released figures for the number of paramilitary beatings were reported in each of the last six years. The Loyalist and Republican figures diverge sharply. Thanks to Gary Kent.
Number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style assaults:

---- By Loyalist ---- By Republican ---- Total

1998 ---- 89 ---- 55 ---- 144

1999 ---- 90 ---- 44 ---- 134

2000 ---- 78 ---- 54 ---- 132

2001 ---- 93 ---- 53 ---- 146

2002 ---- 89 ---- 50 ---- 139

2003 ---- 102 ---- 46 ---- 148"

http://www.sluggerotoole.com/home/archives/002897.asp

monument

Originally posted by James Melody
Support for any terrorist organisation is something I find abhorent.

What if a terrorist organisation is defending people against attack?

Any way, to me a more ideal terrorist organisation would try to destroy and disrupt with out kill any living things – with the right reasons behind this type of action I condone it, however I’m sure some would think it would be less effected and slower.

The Brigadier

The word terrorist implies the use of terror. This is caused by acts of violence and distruction.

This is abhorent.

And I really hope that you are not trying to suggest that the IRA are trying to defend anyone from attack.

Bombing innocent people is by no means a way of protecting anyone. Anybody who believes so, well, I would assume to be either mentally difficient or disturbed.

Cork

Originally posted by monument
I wonder who is carring out more punishment beatings and rising?



http://www.sluggerotoole.com/home/archives/002897.asp

I really don't care who is beating people up less?

The sad part - is we have groups of thugs going around beating people up. This is illegal is most Western Sociertys.

Police forces cannot do it but why should illegal groups in Northern Ireland be involved in such actions?


I

monument

Originally posted by Cork
I really don't care who is beating people up less?

More to the point you don't care about the people who are beating people up more.

I don’t condone any beatings, I also don’t condone one-sidedness.

Johnny 5

Originally posted by daveirl
Well from my point of view it's because the loyalists aren't running candidates in my country let alone my consituency. So basically I'm not too pushed. Loyalist violence happens in a different country as far as I'm concerned and is equivalent to gang warfare in LA or something.

That is remarkably narrowminded of you daveirl. There is something immoral about disregarding the violence on one side of the conflict in favour of propagating the faults of the other. And to compare it to gangland warfare in LA is quite naive.

Originally posted by Cork
Articles 2 & 3 were there for years. Where did it get the people in Northern Ireland?

The future of NI - is up to the people of NI.

The continued existance of the IRA is an insult to the people of Ireland who voted for the Good Friday Agreement.

The continued existance of this group does not build bridges between nationalists and unionists.

The SDLP were correct over the period of that the IRA were active.

What role has the IRA to play in the Peace Process - but to disband.

Let me ask you Cork, if the people of the North did vote in favour of a United Ireland, would you have them back? No, didn't think so. In that respect, it's not just 'up to the people of NI'.

I'll tell you what is an insult to the people of Ireland who voted for the Agreement, the fact that the side who are committing all the violence are being completely ignored. Unionists and yourselves are astonishingly silent when it comes to loyalist crimes. So you have to ask yourself Cork, what's the bigger insult, the getting away with sectarian murder or the silence of the guns of the IRA. You act like the fault of the terrible community relations that exist in the North lies square at the door of the IRA, take a good look at those statistics monument posted up, and then research the activities of loyalism since 1998, compare, then get back to me.

Let me remind you all that the entire island was in the hands of the Brits up until 1922, do you think Michael Collins or James Connolly would appreciate being called British? You Southerners are far too self congratulatory and I think it's a shame that you let national territory be banded about like it doesn't belong. Do you think it is morally right to draw a border on the basis of religion and let all those in the minority living there deal with it? No it's not correct, partition was as illegal as it is today.

Originally posted by Cork
I really don't care who is beating people up less?

Oh you don't? So you don't care who is beating people up except when the IRA are involved, then you care, is that what your saying? Catch yourself on.

As for the constant calling of SF: "SF/IRA", in the North, only the DUP do this, so what I gather is that you share the same ideals as the Paisleyites? And let's not forget who really started the troubles!

monument

Originally posted by James Melody
The word terrorist implies the use of terror. This is caused by acts of violence and distruction.

Under that, a lot of governments (at least most of the powerful ones) are terrorists. So today's use of 'terrorists' is used to name what the governments don’t like.

"I really hope that you are not trying to suggest that the IRA are trying to defend anyone from attack" no they never did :rolleyes:

It’s really sad to think if the IRA were a government involved in any war after and including WWII they could put killing innocent people down to “casualties of war”, but only governments can – some how – get away the something as sick as that.

Being a terrorist must be fun - as you just about getaway with any amount of **** until another terrorist come along and spoils your fun (terrorists as in both governments who use terror and "terrorists"). [SARCASM]

BTW in this post I've *tried* to attack the general thinking of "terrorists", not condone terrorist violence, as like I've said in the past - I don't condone any violence and destructions aimed at any living things - that includes terrorist actions such as the systematic destruction of homes.

sceptre

Originally posted by Johnny 5
Oh you don't? So you don't care who is beating people up except when the IRA are involved, then you care, is that what your saying? Catch yourself on.

I believe the point that Cork was making (and IMHO it was made perfectly clearly) is that it isn't an absolution for either side to say that the other side are carrying out even more punishment beatings. Normal people don't condone or defend Irish corruption on the basis that the Italians do it with style, they don't condone or defend idiocy in the Irish parliamentary chambers on the basis that the Russians and Israelis take it too far, they don't condone Garda brutality on the basis that Turkish police are that little bit nastier so why should they consider what appears to be condoning or defence of Republican punishment beatings on the basis that the Loyalists are being reported for doing them more often? It's a poor orator who can't defend an action on any basis other than the idea of someone else being even worse. Defend it on its own merits, get back to me and we'll have a grown-up discussion.

/All/ punishment beatings are wrong. Monument appears to understand this from his second-last post above, though he chose to post the figures in what seemed to be some kind of defence through blaming someone else more. /All/ punishment beatings should be stopped. /All/ people who carry out punishment beatings are thugs and common criminals. I suspect a number of Irish people are more appalled at Republican beatings on the basis that these people maintain that they carry out their actions through a mandate (that question I never got a proper answer to) from the Irish people. Nevertheless, all people who carry out these beatings (on either side) are common scum in my opinion.

As for what terrorism is, do I really have to drag up the last thread (including my own largely-correct definition) on what terrorism is to knock this off-topic irrelevancy on the head?