It is time for the IRA to disband.

sceptre

Originally posted by David-[RLD]-
How.. witty. I just don't like using the term "British" government.

Why not? You've already used the word "government" in relation to the item so is it the word "British" you've a problem with? And if so, why?

Personally I could care less what you call it but you make yourself look silly by avoiding the use of a word like that and for most people affects the impact of whatever argument you carry. Does this affect any other words the rest of the world occasionally uses?

David-[RLD]-

Originally posted by The Brigadier
How about if you just acted like a grown up and called it by it's actual name.

If you have such a problem using the word British then you have some serious issues which need to be addressed.

How so? I know a lot of English people who despise the term British and avoid using it whenever possible. Many Scottish people I've come across hate it too. I'm sure you would call that irony.

Same with "Northern Ireland". Many nationalists and Republicans in the north hate using that term.

Why would I need to act like a grown up? I don't need to act like one. Why would you convince me to do otherwise, though? Do you need to act like something to be accepted by society? Oh yes, your comment is already sinking in. I suddenly have the urge to go to an acting class. Subliminal propaganda or what? :rolleyes:

Sceptre,
"The rest of the world" which you refer to is a majority. You're generalising. You can't generalise in a debate and expect people to accept it. "The rest of the world" does not call it that. Governments do, many people do, but the world as a whole does not, I'm afraid. I can call the "British" government whatever I like. It doesn't change my argument or the argument of anyone else here, and if you don't know what government is stationed more or less exactly east of Ireland THEN you have issues that need to be addressed.

It's just a damn name. "The Emerald Isle" is a name that's sometimes given to Ireland. Do people who use that term have issues, too?

bonkey

Originally posted by David-[RLD]-
I just don't like using the term "British" government.

Yes, thats what I'm criticising. I thought that was clear.

Would you rather if I called it: The Imperialist Government Stationed In Westmister Which Controls A Country That Has Oppressed Countless Civilisations For Nearly A Millennium?

Didn't think so...

No. See the bit where I pointed out your inability to treat the governments in an equally civil manner? Do you think that the above would be equally civil with "the Irish government" ???

What I would rather is that you showed the British government the same level of civility and respect that you'd show your own government, if only so that you weren't lowering yourself to the level of those who you seek to criticise for not being equal in the way they treat the two "sides".

Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I always find that criticism of flaws is meaningless - at best - when coming from those who have, hold and even defend the very flaws they are criticising.

Maybe the British government isn't putting equal pressure because they just don't like one of the groups, but don't really mind the other. Bit like you and the two governments, yes?

You hinted at as much when you made the following comment about the Loyalists only:

and the Brits don't seem to care

See what I'm driving at? You criticise them for not doing the right thing, and offer as an explanation that it may be because they're somewhat biased because they don't care about sorting one group, but do about the other.

Then you turn around and exhibit an almost identical prejudice yourself....

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by David-[RLD]-
It's just a damn name.

So you'd see no difference between someone referring to you as "David-[RLD]- " and "that <expletive> <expletive> <expletive>" ???

"The Emerald Isle" is a name that's sometimes given to Ireland. Do people who use that term have issues, too?

No, because by and large they're not showing disdain, a lack of civility, or a prejudice against the nation, the island, or the people by using such a term.

jc

David-[RLD]-

Originally posted by bonkey
No. See the bit where I pointed out your inability to treat the governments in an equally civil manner? Do you think that the above would be equally civil with "the Irish government" ???

Well, that is what that government is. I can easily refer to the Irish government as: "That Drunken Pack Of Corrupt Hypocrites Who Can Get A Good Economy But Can't Do The Simple Things Like Getting A Modern Health System", and I have, many a time.

How do I exhibit an "almost identical prejudice"? The Brits DON'T care, and neither do our government. They spend all their time moaning about Republican bombings but hardly ever anything to do with Loyalists. In case you can't read, I said that both governments should put equal pressure on both Republicans and Loyalists to decommission.

How do I show "disdain, a lack of civility, or a prejudice against the nation, the island, or the people by using such a term" as "that government over there". It IS over there (east). That's a fact. No disdain, no lack of civility, no prejudice. It's a fact that their government IS to the east.
To further enhance this fact, if you want proof then you can always look up a European map for reference. :rolleyes:

bonkey

Originally posted by David-[RLD]-
How do I show "disdain, a lack of civility, or a prejudice against the nation, the island, or the people by using such a term" as "that government over there". It IS over there (east). That's a fact. No disdain, no lack of civility, no prejudice. It's a fact that their government IS to the east.

Well, imagine this.

Imagine you and a mate (lets call him Fred) are sitting at a table. Someone you know comes over.

He turns to a fourth person - who also knows both of you - and you overhear him saying "See Fred and that guy sitting beside him..." (he points at you)

Would you consider he - knowing both of you - was being equally civil regarding you and Fred?

One he refers to by name, one he refuses to refer to by name, despite knowing it, and instead settles for positional information and pointing......is that equally civil to you?

If so, then you've a completely different notion of civility than I do. If not, then hopefully you've seen my point.

jc

Mighty_Mouse

Thinik it was mentioned in here previously its now been revealed that the Irish Government had agreed to the release of the CastleRea3 during the last deal that was done. (remember Trimble pulled a fast one before elections).

This means that any future deals will involve this requirement from Sinn Fein and it would of been fulfillled had Trimble not pulled out.

David-[RLD]-

Originally posted by bonkey
Well, imagine this.

Imagine you and a mate (lets call him Fred) are sitting at a table. Someone you know comes over.

He turns to a fourth person - who also knows both of you - and you overhear him saying "See Fred and that guy sitting beside him..." (he points at you)

Would you consider he - knowing both of you - was being equally civil regarding you and Fred?

One he refers to by name, one he refuses to refer to by name, despite knowing it, and instead settles for positional information and pointing......is that equally civil to you?

If so, then you've a completely different notion of civility than I do. If not, then hopefully you've seen my point.

jc

It's not equally civil, but I honestly wouldn't care. Let him. Who cares? I know I wouldn't.

As if I'd go "Hey you! You're not acting equally civil in reference to my friend and I here. Please be equally civil while refererring to us. You have issues that need to be checked out if you don't comply with my demand! Thank you."

bonkey

Originally posted by David-[RLD]-
It's not equally civil,

Good. So we're agreed that you weren't being equally civil to the two governments then?

but I honestly wouldn't care. Let him. Who cares? I know I wouldn't.

Well gosh...going from the number of people who have made disparaging comments following that display of yoru attitude, I'd hazard a guess that quite a number of people would care.

Indeed, if one compares it to the number of people who've posted defending your position.......

As if I'd go "Hey you! You're not acting equally civil in reference to my friend and I here. Please be equally civil while refererring to us. You have issues that need to be checked out if you don't comply with my demand! Thank you."

Well if the guy in question was making some impassioned plea about how you and Fred aren't treating him and some other people equally, you'd probably be looking at him funny wondering how he could be such a hypocrite and/or holding such double-standards.

Well - no - thats not true. You may not, because you claim to not care about such things (despite complaining about the lack of fairness from the governments when it comes to dealing with Republicans and Unionists - apparently governments have to abide by some degree of fairness that you feel the individual doesn't).

However - as I've pointed out - it should apparent that many other people would be wondering what I outlined above....and I'm pretty sure that many of them will be thinking it about you as a result of this thread too.

Which brings me right back to where I started from....because, you know...I'm one of those people.

jc

sceptre

Originally posted by David-[RLD]-
As if I'd go "Hey you! You're not acting equally civil in reference to my friend and I here. Please be equally civil while refererring to us. You have issues that need to be checked out if you don't comply with my demand! Thank you."

<pub mode>
Well you might well go "hey, the bollix has a name you know, y'ignorant hoore ya"
</pub mode>

At least that's what I'd say.

Like bonkey, I'd be a bit surprised if my name-avoiding friend whinged that we didn't keep him a seat.


To answer your point above, of course it was a generalisation (which works fine in a debate (which we're not having) under any parliamentary rules for debating where any reasonable person would recognise it as a generalisation) - it was meant to be. Did anyone reading this think it was anything other than a generalisation?

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Thinik it was mentioned in here previously its now been revealed that the Irish Government had agreed to the release of the CastleRea3 during the last deal that was done. (remember Trimble pulled a fast one before elections).

This means that any future deals will involve this requirement from Sinn Fein and it would of been fulfillled had Trimble not pulled out.

I'm not sure if the use of the term the " Castlerea three " is appropriate here.
It's usually a type of terminology used where those campaining for a groups release are absolutely certain that they were wrongly convicted.
That wouldn't be the case with respect to those that murdered Garda McCabe.
That said, the anomolies surrounding the attitudes of the government down south and the contrasting expectations taken as a given up North is doing more harm than good.
If you are agitating for SF involvement in Government in NI, you cannot be agitating against their involvement down South, at least publically anyway.
And if you have police killers released from Northern prisons and you aren't prepared to do the same down south , however un palletable it may be...
Remember a dead RUC/PSNI's families feelings should carry as much weight as that of a dead Garda.
It just reeks of the most obvious of double standards that you could come across.

Cork

Sinn Féin has branded tighter fundraising regulations proposed for Northern Ireland as both "ludicrous and an attack on the democratic process".

Link

What does SF thnk that criminality by the IRA adds to the democratic process.

Those involved with the murder of Jerry McCabe should be left in jail. The government should stand firm aganist calls for their realease. The IRA being used as a bargaining chip to gain further concessions is dire.

Either the IRA fully accept the GFA or not. The security forces and Criminal assets bureau should start taking on the IRA. Striking deals with these people is completely wrong.

Originally posted by Cork

Those involved with the murder of Jerry McCabe should be left in jail.

Why?
If those that did the exact same thing in NI are released, so should the Gerry McCabe killers.
The relatives of those that died in NI have had to put up with a dose of unpalletable pragmatism, the same should apply down here.

The IRA being used as a bargaining chip to gain further concessions is dire.

Why? It's one of the only tools available to SF.
The tool being their influence with the IRA.
As certain household names in SF over the last ten years have exerted all the influence on the IRA, there have been very few deaths directly related to terrorism there, that is a remarkable turn around.
It would be better to advocate imho to continue to consult them as part of a process to shore up the GFA, rather than to frustrate the hard liners such that they further split and cause more mahem.
The fact that they might, is immaterial when it's pragmatism that stops them.

Striking deals with these people is completely wrong.

Come again? What do you want to do, bang them all back up in prison?
Sure do that where there is a case and let any justice be rightly done where there is corruption or racketeering or any one found to be involved in any crime including punishment beatings.
But let such action be separate to the over all picture ie your dealings with SF.
People can and do make up their own minds as to whether a vote for SF is worth it and have decided on any paramilitary links, most people so far haven't or won't vote for them for that reason and I suppose because they don't support their brand of socialism.

However one shouldn't let that process interfere with the benefits of being pragmatic up North.

Cork

Originally posted by Earthman
Why?

As certain household names in SF over the last ten years have exerted all the influence on the IRA, there have been very few deaths directly related to terrorism there, that is a remarkable turn around.

Big Success - Do SF/IRA expect congradulations?


What household names in SF have influence on the IRA?

These household names have been ineffective in stopping criminality of the IRA. What has SF done to convince the IRA to stop rackeering? What ever it has done - it has failed miserably.

What do you want to do, bang them all back up in prison

Well - If the IRA continue with rackeering, Yes.

they don't support their brand of socialism.

How many brands of socailism are there?

It is about time gave us more than a brand of socialism and actually sold the GFA to the hardmen of the IRA.

mneylon

Originally posted by Cork
It is about time gave us more than a brand of socialism and actually sold the GFA to the hardmen of the IRA.

Cork

You are like an ostrich with your head stuck in the sand.
If the IRA had not endorsed the GFA do you honestly think there would still be a ceasefire?

Have you ever even been to Belfast?

Originally posted by Cork
Big Success - Do SF/IRA expect congradulations?

Not exactly, a little more kudos than you are giving them yes.
They have had to swallow a lot of their pride and worked hard at persuading hard liners to go with the process.

Think about it Cork, these IRA guys are of the mindset that they are 100% right in the same way as you appear to be of the mindset that FF are 100% right
Kudos for getting them to comprimise, pragmatism works.
Pragmatism is a way of getting things done and not a justification for past wrong do-ing.

Well - If the IRA continue with rackeering, Yes.

Please tell me you are talking about conviced racketeers and not all rank and file sinn féin members.
Or have you invented a new law, whereby if some party supporters break the law all should be put in jail...
That would put you in jail cork

It is about time gave us more than a brand of socialism and actually sold the GFA to the hardmen of the IRA

It's a lot more complicated than that Cork and for making such a bland one line statement, I give you 1 out of 10 for your background knowledge of NI politics.

mneylon

Originally posted by Earthman

I give you 1 out of 10 for your background knowledge of NI politics.

Which is the root of the problem with some people who have been posting to this thread.
I am not sure whether it is ignorance or naivety, or a possible combination of both. People seem to be of the view that the world is black and white, and although this might be true in some cases it is far from true when dealing with the complexities of conflict resolution.

Cork

Originally posted by Earthman

It's a lot more complicated than that Cork and for making such a bland one line statement, I give you 1 out of 10 for your background knowledge of NI politics.

The problem with IRA criminal activity is not solely confined to Northern Ireland. IRA rackeering is costing the Irish excquer money. This means less money going to health, education and social welfare.

IRA activity has to stop. Using illegal IRA weapons as a bargaining chip to gain further concessions is an insult to democrats.

Sinn Féin has branded tighter fundraising regulations proposed for Northern Ireland as both "ludicrous and an attack on the democratic process".

This is from a party with links to the IRA. How dare SF preach about attacks on the democratic process. I would much prefer, if it began to talk about moves to get the IRA to disarm and disband.

bonkey

And once more, Cork gravitates between condemnation and taking the hard stance and suggesting that we need compromise.

Do you even realise how much of a broken record you're beginning to sound like, Cork?

jc

David-[RLD]-

He sounds like a DUP member if you ask me.

"This is from a party with links to the IRA. How dare SF preach about attacks on the democratic process. I would much prefer, if it began to talk about moves to get the IRA to disarm and disband."

THANK YOU, Mr. Stating The Obvious. We already know Sinn Féin have links to the IRA. We don't need to be told a million times. And have you been ignoring the news over the past decade? Telling the IRA to disband would just cause the formation of more splinter groups! It's like telling Bush to pull out of Iraq; it just won't happen.

What's better?
A single IRA observing a 10-year long cease-fire...
OR
Many splinter groups murdering and bombing constantly.

Cork

Originally posted by bonkey
And once more, Cork gravitates between condemnation and taking the hard stance and suggesting that we need compromise

jc

Who or what political partys have tolerance for racketeering that is costing the Irish exchequer funds? Where does the SF "brand of socialism" stand on IRA criminal activity that is means less money for spending on health, education and social welfare?

just cause the formation of more splinter groups!

So, Are we to allow the IRA to engage in criminality? Are we allow them to hold on to their weapons?

single IRA observing a 10-year long cease-fire...

Why can't the ceasefire include the ceasation of racketeering, punishment beatings etc?

But compromise will be needed. Compromise on all sides. I don't believe that those associatedd with the murder of Jerry McCabe should be released but compromise should be found thru the democratic process and not by holding on to weapons.

He sounds like a DUP member if you ask me

There is over 75% of the NI electorate who don't vote SF.

The future of NI is in the hands of those who live in NI.

The maintenance of an illegal army won't heal devision and will not convert any unionists over to the idea of a United Ireland.

The NI economy is a mess. It is made up of public service jobs thru a 10 billion uk subvention. The continued existance of the IRA will not advance the cause of a united Ireland that will transform the economy of NI from into a market driven modern ecomy.

Compromise will be needed but holding on to weapons as bargaining chips is not needed.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Who or what political partys have tolerance for racketeering that is costing the Irish exchequer funds?

Yes, you've "asked" this before. Its been answered too.

Where does the SF "brand of socialism" stand on IRA criminal activity that is means less money for spending on health, education and social welfare?

And this.

So, Are we to allow the IRA to engage in criminality? Are we allow them to hold on to their weapons?

And this.

Why can't the ceasefire include the ceasation of racketeering, punishment beatings etc?

And this.

But compromise will be needed.

Oooh. Variety!!!! Something that isn't phrased as a question!

Oh, no...wait.....its still just an old point re-iterated.

Compromise on all sides.

And this.

I don't believe that those associatedd with the murder of Jerry McCabe should be released but compromise should be found thru the democratic process and not by holding on to weapons.

Yup, these two also.

There is over 75% of the NI electorate who don't vote SF.

I've a feeling that you may not have actually made this point before, but I can neither fathom its relevance, nor its purpose...and I'm afraid to ask lest I get subjected to yet another repetition of the myriad of points and pseudo-rhetorical questions you keep trotting out any time anyone makes any point which you feel a need to "respond" to.

But go on...explain to me why this is somehow important....who knows...we may even hear something original for a change.

The future of NI is in the hands of those who live in NI.

Phew. After one potentially original sentence, I was worried you might be changing your ways...but nope.

You've said this before too.

The maintenance of an illegal army won't heal devision and will not convert any unionists over to the idea of a United Ireland.

And this.

The NI economy is a mess. It is made up of public service jobs thru a 10 billion uk subvention. The continued existance of the IRA will not advance the cause of a united Ireland that will transform the economy of NI from into a market driven modern ecomy.

And this.

Compromise will be needed but holding on to weapons as bargaining chips is not needed.

And this.

So...after pointing out that you gravitate between insistance for compromise and an insistance that compromise has to stop, and that you sound like a broken record, your reply consists of :

1) One possibly new point, but who's relevance I cannot fathom.
2) a myriad of points you've made before...many, many times before...which have repeatedly been ridiculed as being nothing more than a collection of soundbites rather than a cohesive argument, or even a cohesive set of suggestions of what should be done.

And within those myriad of repeated points, we can once again see :
1) an insitence that its time to get tough and stop compromising and start getting things sorted out.
2) an insistence that compromise is needed in order to do this. (Reader Beware : logic fails when in the proximity of both of these points. Do not tarry long in this area lest you be permanently affected).

The defence rests its case m'lord.

jc

Cork

Bonkey, I am sorry that my posting lacks originality.

But my main point was that the existance of an illegal army cannot be used as a bargaining chip to win concessions. Democratic partys win concessions thru debate and "horse trading".

I responded to the "more splinter groups" arguement that if a United Ireland is to be won. It needs more than the support of SF supporters.

NI has not shared in our economys success. NI 's economy is kept going by massive subventions by the British government. They are many economic reasons for a United Ireland. But support of the Unionist people will not be won by allowing an illegal army's weapons and criminal activitys to win concessions.

Compromise will be necessary - domn't get me wrong. But SF needs to convince the IRA leadership (who ever they may be) to give up their criminal activity. I think Dr Sean Brady comments today sums alot up The head of the Catholic Church in Ireland today "demanded IRA disbandment".

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
But my main point was that the existance of an illegal army cannot be used as a bargaining chip to win concessions.

The only people seeming to use it as a bargaining chip are those taking a stance such as your own, whereby insisting that its existence is a reason to stall the process.

Go back and look at the Good Friday Agreement and show me where it calls for the disbanding of the IRA.

When you show me that, and that the various parties signed up for it, I will accept that there is grounds - within the scope of the existing agreement - for your call. If not, then what you are doing is demanding concessions not covered in the GFA, and using the IRA itself as the "leverage" to make these claims.....which is exactly the sort of thing you're complaining about whilst making the call for the IRA to be disbanded!

Yet more contradictions...how unsurprising.

I responded to the "more splinter groups" arguement that if a United Ireland is to be won. It needs more than the support of SF supporters.

Yes it does.

Given that a united Ireland will require Unionist support as well as Republican, though, I would have though that singling out one party and its approxiomate support-base size was a bit pointless.

They are many economic reasons for a United Ireland.

There are many economic reasons for a United World as well, but I don't see you calling for the abolishment of every nation on the planet to be replaced by a world government.

But support of the Unionist people will not be won by allowing an illegal army's weapons and criminal activitys to win concessions.

Nor will support of the Republicans be gained by allowing anyone to effectively hold the process to ransom by making demands that explicitly fall outside the scope of comittments made to date and stalling the process when those demands aren't met.....

...which is the approach you're advocating to "gain" more support. Strange that.

Compromise will be necessary - domn't get me wrong.

Hold on Cork. I've lost track of the number of times I've asked you this : Compromise on what??? Compromise on points that are, or are not, in the GFA?
Compromise on the GFA itself?

But SF needs to convince the IRA leadership (who ever they may be) to give up their criminal activity.

You know, this is about the only comment you seem capable of making about the whole affair that I can agree with.


jc

David-[RLD]-

Sinn Féin DO need to convince the IRA leadership to give up their criminal activity, but how easy do you think something like that is?

"RIGHT LADS! Ye gotta stop yer criminal activity, for the good of the GFA!"
"Oh, f**k off you old fart."

I would hardly be surprised if that happened.

You try convincing the IRA leadership to give up crime.. I doubt it's an easy task.

Mighty_Mouse

Striking deals with these people is completely wrong.

Compromise will be needed

Above are both by Cork:eek: :rolleyes: Cork you just don't seem to follow any logic at all. Are you the F. Fail Ian Paisley or something? I bet you would make a great public speaker with repetitive "tabloid" headline spaeks! But then again so did Hitler and Ian Paisley.

Theres nothing much more I think I can add here. All of Corks stuff has been responded to a million times yet Cork himself has refused to engage in any discussion of solutions, contradictions by himself etc etc

"The Castlerea Three" ---- Is there a term when people are innocent versus not innocent. Or is there a term for political campaigns. Either way I used it to refer to a well-known case. Would " The three prisoners in Castlerea" have been better?

Villain

OMG,Cork man your a broken record.

I was going to post a few times on this thread over the weekend but I think Bonkey stated what I was thinking, i.e 90% of the time Cork is repeating himself.

We all know that it would be great if the IRA disbanded but as blacknight stated nothing is simply black and white, there needs to be a lot more give and take before disbandment takes place.

I also notice the way Cork continually harps on about this criminal activity of IRA, Cork answer me this? Why aren't the people who are carrying out this activity been arrested and charged, I mean the Minister for Justice gives the impression he knows who's doing it

Also I'd like to point out that the majority of illegal activity in the north appears to be coming from the Loyalists. I'm not trying to say this makes what the republicans do alright, but people need to keep both sides in mind when discussing these issues.

pork99

It would be better for Sinn Fein if they did disband.

My allegiances would be to Fine Gael. I've met several perfectly pleasant likable people who support and/or are members of Sinn Fein. While I can have a reasonable discussion with these people and can respect where they are coming from, at the back of my mind there are always some thoughts which make me uncomfortable. I'm always thinking what links might this person have with, what is to me anyway, a band of armed criminals?

I don't have these nagging doubts when talking to anyone sympathetic to Fianna Fail, Labour, PDs, Greens etc. If Sinn Fein genuinely want and need to be part of the political life of this state all that has to go.

David-[RLD]-

Originally posted by irish1
OMG,Cork man your a broken record.

I was going to post a few times on this thread over the weekend but I think Bonkey stated what I was thinking, i.e 90% of the time Cork is repeating himself.

We all know that it would be great if the IRA disbanded but as blacknight stated nothing is simply black and white, there needs to be a lot more give and take before disbandment takes place.

I also notice the way Cork continually harps on about this criminal activity of IRA, Cork answer me this? Why aren't the people who are carrying out this activity been arrested and charged, I mean the Minister for Justice gives the impression he knows who's doing it

Also I'd like to point out that the majority of illegal activity in the north appears to be coming from the Loyalists. I'm not trying to say this makes what the republicans do alright, but people need to keep both sides in mind when discussing these issues.

All very good points. Everyone tends to ignore Loyalists and what they have done, too.

The Brigadier

Yes, but the loyalists aren't engaging in illegal activities down here.