Bertie and Gerry, is it all over now? (sniff!)

Villain

no longer full.

Cork you do realise you posted that last post numerous times??

gandalf

Cork I hope that you posted that same post 6 times in error. I will let you away with it this time but if I see it again I will take action.

Gandalf.

gandalf

Right I have read thru this thread and all I can see is people going around in circles.

From my perspective it is vitally important that any political party does not have the ability to bypass the laws of the nation and democracy itself. If you have a private army either as part of your organisation or closely affiliated with your political party then you should never be allowed to get into a position of government or even power. If the ceasefire is permanent then you or the army should come out with a clear timetable of decommissioning and eventually disbandment of the paramilitary organisation.

I am a citizen of the Republic of Ireland and Europe am sick and tired about Northern Ireland taking up so much of our political resources and being used by various governments as a bolt hole when they should be facing issues that are more important to a modern ireland. At the end of the day if people in Northern Ireland want to have peace they will have to compromise from both sides, it is something that they have to do.

I for one feel safe in my decision from the circumstantial evidence that is out there that Gerry Adams was a senior IRA member. It is also clear that Republican elements are active in Criminal Activities in the South and in Northern Ireland as well. Again this has to be eliminated before Sinn Fein can be trusted in my view. I know the first thing that the Sinn Fein supporters here will say is what about the Loyalists, all I can say is that you are argueing like a schoolkid if one side does not make the brave decision to denounce violence once and for all then the cycle will continue on for a few more generations tainting them as well.

Gandalf.

Villain

Originally posted by gandalf
I know the first thing that the Sinn Fein supporters here will say is what about the Loyalists, all I can say is that you are argueing like a schoolkid if one side does not make the brave decision to denounce violence once and for all then the cycle will continue on for a few more generations tainting them as well.

Gandalf.

The IRA made a Substanicial act of decommisioning but the Unionist's thought it wasn't enough, I think people need to look at what has been done to help the peace process by SF and the IRA before they start on what should be done.

Gandalf in a perfect world where the argument was simple, one side denoucing violence would solve everything, but thats not the case here.

Do you honestly believe Ian Paisley and his DUP party will agree to go into government if the IRA totally decommisions?? I doubth it, remember there are breakaway groups that are not on a ceasefire and that have no interest in peace that SF has no control over.

gandalf

Originally posted by irish1
The IRA made a Substanicial act of decommisioning but the Unionist's thought it wasn't enough, I think people need to look at what has been done to help the peace process by SF and the IRA before they start on what should be done.

Why don't they just decommission the whole lot. They do not have a need for arms unless they reserve the right to start the murdering again. Personally I would have thought that everyone (bar the total extremists on the fringes) would have moved on from this reality.

Gandalf in a perfect world where the argument was simple, one side denoucing violence would solve everything, but thats not the case here.

Denouncing violence is one thing actually not taking part in violence is what I and others are talking about.

Do you honestly believe Ian Paisley and his DUP party will agree to go into government if the IRA totally decommisions?? I doubth it, remember there are breakaway groups that are not on a ceasefire and that have no interest in peace that SF has no control over. [/B]

Here we go again blame the other side. If they did decomission then Paisley and his cohorts would not have a leg to stand on now would they!!!! Also with that final sentence of yours you have just admitted that you think Sinn Fein have control over the Provisional IRA. How interesting

Gandalf.

Mighty_Mouse

The IRA will go away completely, eventually. (and before Ireland is united!)

The political goodwill hasnt been created up north for it to happen though. Every "historic" action IRA has taken has been thrown back in their face.

Cork

The IRA, SF, FF, PDs, FG, Labour all support the Good Friday Agreement.

They support the CONSENT principle.

This is the coner stone of all of the above partys/groups with regard to Northern Ireland Policy.

Then, there is no reason for the IRA to exist.

their existance is an obstacle in getting the Peace Process back on track so why not decommission every bullet.

Does SF/IRA think these weapons can be used as bargaining chips or the IRA cannot get away from their smuggling rackets?

Mighty_Mouse

1. SF & IRA are two different organisations. You seemed to make a typo previously
2. so why not decommission every bullet --- decommissioning is only a gesture process to show commitment and can never be more
3. The IRA have gone as far as they can at this point it time. They have made statements, apologies etc etc( all the things that would never happen!). Therefore they are working with the agreement and for the agreement.
4. The problems facing the GFA at the moment are within unionism.
5. The only step for the IRA left to make is to disband. Do you think they are going to do this where no unionists terrorists are on ceasefire (not even political will for them to be so) and where the british government has defaulted on its commitment to demilitarisation?
6. again. whether you like it or not, the political climate has not been created to make it possible for the IRA to sell the idea of disbandment to its members. Ye rant on about the pressures on poor aul Trimble from anti-agreemnet unionists but refuse to acknowlege the progress the IRA has made under similar pressures

Mighty_Mouse

Finally,personaly I dont know anything about the level of sumuggling, recruiting, and fundraising going on by the IRA but I reckon its minimal at the moment. After all the organisation hasnt the same drain on resources at the moment.

IMO what does this minimal activity matter in the context of the last thirty yrs. Its time for ppl to be realistic on whats achievable within the republican movement.

Realistically -a government needs to be established. The onus here is on the brits to convince the DUP that the GFA is non-negotiable. NON-negotiable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So let them take their choice.

At the moment the brits are not firm enough in their commitment to the goverment in NI.

Same can be said about the Irish government at the mo

Cork

You cannot be half pregnant. It is not acceptable that a political party has links to an illegal army.

Sumuggling, recruiting, and fundraising are also not acceptable.

SF and the DUP have just to work it out.

Illegal arms do nothing to build trust. The Irish & UK governments have bent over backwards for the NI Peace Process.

It is now up to SF & the DUP.

The elections were last November & still SF & DUP have made to progess to restarting the assembley.

The IRA has to decommission. It will be a confidence building measure.

It cannot simply hand onto such weapons.

SF & the DUP need to start making some progess.

To do otherwise, is an insult to the Irish electorate who voted for the GFA.

bonkey

Originally posted by gandalf
Why don't they just decommission the whole lot.
They do not have a need for arms unless they reserve the right to start the murdering again. Personally I would have thought that everyone (bar the total extremists on the fringes) would have moved on from this reality.

For a man who's read the entire thread, and talks about others going in circles, I find this point somewhat amusing

The best reason for not decomissioning teh whole lot is simple - they cannot prove its everything. And once you can't prove its everything, there is nothing to be gained. Indeed, if the opposition (the DUP etc.) were to then turn around and say "we're convinced that this only amounted to approximately 70% of what they have, so nothing until the remaining 30% is also decomissioned", what do you do? Do you go and acquire new weapons in order to decomission them to the requested quantities, or do you just give up and accept that you've handed over your entire arsenal for no gain whatsoever?

Denouncing violence is one thing actually not taking part in violence is what I and others are talking about.

I agree, but this is an entirely seperate issue to decomissioning. I believe that the IRA should put a much tighter control on its activities...effectively to cease them entirely in all forms.

I would also point out, however, that it is becoming relatively common to hear about events that are supposedly carried out by the IRA, which typically cause a surge in public opinion concerning decomissioning/disbanding/de-whatever, despite the fact that the event in question has not been conclusively linked to the organisation in question.

Whats the relevance of this? Well, most people here would presumably like to think of themselves as reasonably objective (i.e. we all believe to one extend or another that our view is the most logically correct one). And yet here we have a bunch of us baying for the IRA to disband/fully decomission triggered by an evernt that was associated with them without genuine proof.

Now, if we - who believe we are objective - are willing to blame the IRA for this event, up to the point of it incensing us to restart a tired old discussion and fill who-knows-how-many-pages......what can we expect from those we know are less objective such as Paisley et al? if we cannot explain how our demands could possibly ever be fully met, how can we expect those who are less objective and more opposed to ever accept that the demands have been met?

This is what gets me. I raised the point earlier, and whoever was responding immediately backed down from a "complete decomissioning" standard, and said that all that was needed was a significant move towards it...only to follow it up a couple of posts later by a reiteration of the demand for complete decomissioning!!!

So we - the objective ones - don't seem to be able to quantify how to get what we want, but expect it to be supplied to those who clearly don't want it to happen anyway because it would weaken the justification for their "just say NO" stance, because.....why????

Because we can't understand why they just don't do what logic tells us cannot be done!

If they did decomission then Paisley and his cohorts would not have a leg to stand on now would they!!!!

If they could prove they had fully decomissioned, and had no means of re-arming, and that none of the splinter groups were actually affiliated to them in any way....sure, Paisley and his lads wouldn't have a leg to stand on at all.

Unfortunately, not a single one of those things can be proven.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
You cannot be half pregnant. It is not acceptable that a political party has links to an illegal army.

So kick out Sinn Fein from the Northern Assembly while their illegal army remains in existence.

To do otherwise, is an insult to the Irish electorate who voted for the GFA.

So kick out Sinn Fein from the Northern Assembly.

Look - if its not acceptable, then we shouldn't accept it. Kick them out, and leave them on the sides until such times as they are willing to kow tow to your demands.

If you're not willing to recommend doing that, then please, please, PLEASE give this "not acceptable" stuff a break, because if you're not willing to stand by what you're saying then they're just hollow, meaningless words which are wasting someone's bandwidth.

jc

swiss

Originally posted by bonkey:
The best reason for not decomissioning teh whole lot is simple - they cannot prove its everything. And once you can't prove its everything, there is nothing to be gained. Indeed, if the opposition (the DUP etc.) were to then turn around and say "we're convinced that this only amounted to approximately 70% of what they have, so nothing until the remaining 30% is also decomissioned", what do you do? Do you go and acquire new weapons in order to decomission them to the requested quantities, or do you just give up and accept that you've handed over your entire arsenal for no gain whatsoever?

You've made this point several times during the course of this thread, so I think I'll just interject with an opinion. At present, everyone knows the IRA has weapons. Indeed, they have decommissioned an indeterminate amount of these weapons, and since we have only unreliable indicators such as "substantial" used to quantify these decommisioning acts, we can assume that they have a communsurate amount tucked away elsewhere. The very presence of these weapons, along with the certainty in the minds of people that these weapons exist, means that not only does it show that the IRA are capable of resuming their path of violence, they are ready to do so (or at least give out that signal).

However, lets say tomorrow, the IRA turns around and decides to decommission what it decides are all of it's weapons. Sinn Féin concurs that total disarmament has, in fact, been achieved. The IRA might still have weapons lying around. What is significant, however is that the imminence of a possible return to violence has been lessened. After all, should the IRA be found to have lied, then Sinn Féin would be complicit in that guilt, which would be clear to all to see. For a political system that is rooted in symbolism, I cannot but see total decommissioning as an extremely significant demonstration by Sinn Féin as to their willingness to engage in purely democratic political pursuits.

Certainly, it would take time before a majority of Unionist peoples could trust Sinn Féin on the truth of such a declaration. Such is the nature of newly formed democracies and governments. It would however doubtlessly shift the pressure onto the DUP should they remain intransigent in thier unwillingness to deal with Sinn Féin.

Similarly, you have made the point that should the IRA decommission, there is nothing to stop them to obtain fresh supplies of weapons (say from Libya). While this is correct, it again alludes to a level of distrust in NI which to an extent has to be cast aside. For example, if I was to suggest that the Fianna Fáil party has begun to re-arm itself as it had done at it's inception, people would doubtlessly ask for proof. Without such proof, there would be no reason to kick Fianna Fáil out of government. The same should hold true for Sinn Féin.

Look - if its not acceptable, then we shouldn't accept it. Kick them out, and leave them on the sides until such times as they are willing to kow tow to your demands.

Again, opinion time . Sinn Féin were included in talks and a provisional government on the basis that they were committed to peaceful pursuit of their democratic mandate. This included a specific timetable for decommissioning, to which the IRA did not adhere. Now, if I recall correctly, Sinn Féin did have a "get out of jail free" clause, insofar as they were to use all of they were to use all of their influence to bring about decommissioning (i.e the act of decommissioning itself - if unachievable - would not mean that Sinn Féin would be penalised should they have been found to use whatever influence they could to try to bring it about). Given the current situation, I really can't see that Sinn Féin have in the past exerted all of their influence in this regard. Going into the reasons why not would probably take another <x> page thread.

Consequently, the whole issue of whether they should be allowed in government now, given that they arguably did not follow the demands of the GFA is an entirely open issue. My gut feeling at the moment is that they should, in the spirit of compromise that has allowed the agreement to proceed thus far. However, I can well understand Unionist demands that they should not.

So whether they should be kicked out of the Northern Assembly or not - my personal opinion is that they shouldn't , yet. However, I don't have any sympathy for them should the DUP decide they aren't sharing power for the reasons I've mentioned above.

bonkey

Originally posted by swiss
and since we have only unreliable indicators such as "substantial" used to quantify these decommisioning acts, we can assume that they have a communsurate amount tucked away elsewhere.

But equally, had we a reliable indicator such as "100 tons of weapons were decomissioned", we could just as easily assume that there was a commensurate amount tucked away elsewhere.

However, lets say tomorrow, the IRA turns around and decides to decommission what it decides are all of it's weapons. Sinn Féin concurs that total disarmament has, in fact, been achieved.

OK. So we'd have the two groups who used to say "we have put violence behind us" now saying "we have put our guns behind us" instead.

We didn't trust the first answer even before there was evidence to cast it into doubt.

So why should someone who doesn't want to trust them (i.e. Unionist opposition) trust them any more when we can still reasonably assume that they still have guns, and we can point out that they have a habit of being generous with the truth when it comes to this type of statement???

After all, should the IRA be found to have lied, then Sinn Féin would be complicit in that guilt, which would be clear to all to see.

Yes...but conversely, should a splinter group make the headlines, or some other activity be laid at their feet, bearing in mind what I've said already, then they can be blamed for something that they were not responsible for, and suffer the reprecussions for it....even in the absence of it being proven.

I cannot but see total decommissioning as an extremely significant demonstration by Sinn Féin as to their willingness to engage in purely democratic political pursuits.

And here we go again. Having just made the case for the benefit of "a significant reduction in threat", and how utter and complete disarming may not strictly be what is needed, you revert immediately to a call for the absolute.

Now, really Swiss....if you're doing this from a somewhat objective point of view....what do you think the Unionists will do?

it again alludes to a level of distrust in NI which to an extent has to be cast aside.

Cast aside? So I'm imagining all of these people insisting that without total disarmament of the IRA, and preferably the complete disbanding of same, that Sinn Fein should not be given a place in the future of the country, north or south of the border ????

If and when those people tone their absolutes down to something realistically achievable, I will accept that the level of mistrust has - to a relevant extent - been put aside.

For example, if I was to suggest that the Fianna Fáil party has begun to re-arm itself as it had done at it's inception, people would doubtlessly ask for proof. Without such proof, there would be no reason to kick Fianna Fáil out of government. The same should hold true for Sinn Féin.

Should hold true, yes.

However, if I was to say to you that Joe Bloggs, who was beaten half to death outside his pub last weekend by a bunch of thugs was attacked on instructions of a group of FF thugs, you would probably laugh me off the boards for a conspiracy theory without evidence.

If I say it was believed to be SF/IRA thugs, I'm more likely to hear people getting outrageously indignant about how scummy the IRA and Sinn Fein are to be carrying out this type of action.

So I'm more inclined to say that while its a lovely theory you propose, the reality is that the bad guys generally don't get given the benefit of the doubt that we are willing to extend to others when we tend to find the allegations to be less than proven.

Again, opinion time .

That one was aimed specifically at Cork, so I'll wait for his answer before responding to this bit....

I'm trying to encourage him to actually get involved in the discussion rather than reverting back to the old "soundbite" technique of posting.

The difference here is that you aren't interjecting with a comment that "it is unacceptable for blah blah blah" as if that somehow answers all the issues. Cork is, and I'm just waiting to see if he can actually defend his position without backing down from it. Personally, I doubt it.

jc

Mighty_Mouse

Your wasting your time lads!! All you gonna get is :

- why dont all northern Irish move to the south
- Sinn Fein are savages and shouldn't be allowed in a deomocracy
- The IRA should just decommission in a clear and verifiable manner
- the reason the IRA wont decommission is becasue of their drug dealing rackets
- Republicans are animals who wont commit to peace
- etc etc etc

Ive grown tired of posting so I hope this preempts the usualy response to direct questions at anti-shinners. Maby force them to actually think and consider the situation in NI.


(I realise that neither of ye are Shinners (i dont think anyways) but at least ye show and understanding of the issues involved!!)

Cork

Originally posted by bonkey


If you're not willing to recommend doing that, then please, please, PLEASE give this "not acceptable" stuff a break, because if you're not willing to stand by what you're saying then they're just hollow, meaningless words which are wasting someone's bandwidth.

jc

Right. The Assembly elections were last November. There is no assembly. There exists a political vacuum. If there is no movement between the DUP & SF.

I would prefer to see the DUP coming to an agreement with the SDLP. I would also bring back section 31 to stop SF from making political capital out of any exclusion.

An assembly without SF is far better than having so assembly.

IF the IRA won't decommission its weaponary - the DUP will not go into an assembley.

Compromise is called for. (The DUP also has to compromise).

But it is up to the DUP & SF to hammer an agreement out between them to restart the assembley.

The have a mandate. This should mean more than MLA salarys and an empty assembly.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
An assembly without SF is far better than having so assembly.

Really? You don't think that an exclusionist policy is the fastest way to encourage a return to violence? "Do what we tell you, when we tell you, or we'll kick you out of the negotiations" - you see that as preferable????:?

Compromise is called for.

This coming from the man who has said in his last post that "You cannot be half pregnant" ???? From the man who has said that "The IRA has to decommission..... It cannot simply hand onto such weapons."

Are you now saying that you were wrong, Cork? That these issues must be negotiated with give-and-take on both sides? That a compromise needs to be found to the impasse?

Thats funny, because I could have sworn that you were calling for full disarmament, and preferably disbanding, and how it has to be done to move things forward.

Now you're saying that compromise is whats needed!!!! Compromise on what?????? On the stuff you're saying must happen?????

Is pretty much what I expected....another case of clarifying the absolute to mean something far less than absolute.

Insisting that the IRA must do omething, and must do it completely, and then defending this by saying that compromise is whats needed......absolutely brilliant.

Let me guess...the compromise is "do what we tell you, when we tell you, and we wont kick you out of the assembly"?????



jc

Cork

Many in Ireland have difficulty with the IRA holding on to weapons. The situation is that we have stale mate in Northern Ireland. Difficulties need to be overcome?

SF & Dup are now the biggest parties. If I had a vote up in Northern Ireland. I won't not be bothered with either. But democracy is democracy and it derserves repect.

But, there is a problem - these 2 partys are not engaging with each other. They will have to get together and compromise. The Good Friday Agreement is all too important to be left unworked and left to lapse.

So what is causing the impasse? Illegal Arms?lack of trust?

Why are such arms needed. Which is more important IRA weaponary or the Good Friday Agreement?

Likewise, what purpose do punishment beatings or racketeering funfill?

The DUP are not blameless either. They need to become pro active & work the agreement that Irish people North & South voted for.

It all boils down to working the GFA and its up to the people of NI to decide on the future of NI.

But SF, DUP and Others have a duty to work the agreement.

It was endoursed by the majority of people North & South.


(I think the early release of prisoners was much harder on the victims of violence than handing over illegal weapons. That said loyalist terror gangs should also decommision. It really does not metter - if you are trying to normalise life - the threat of violence (perceived as it may well be ) breeds mistrust. Hardliners love mistrust. It They trieve on it)

swiss

Originally posted by bonkey

But equally, had we a reliable indicator such as "100 tons of weapons were decomissioned", we could just as easily assume that there was a commensurate amount tucked away elsewhere.

Yes indeed, in the absence of any indication to the contrary. However, if an act of decommissioning should take place along with a statement explaining that all weapons have now been decommissioned, then the burden of showing that the IRA have more weapons falls squarely on the Unionists.

Your argument has - to date - been that total decommissioning is a convenient excuse taken by unionists, precisely because you cannot ever confirm that it has taken place or not. I'm not asking the IRA to "prove the unprovable" because that is clearly nonsense. Instead, if the IRA were to claim that they have decommissioned all weapons I would then turn to the DUP/other unionist parties and see if they then negotiate with Sinn Féin. If their response is simply to ask Sinn Féin to prove it, then their arguments about decommissioning no longer hold any merit.

After all, according to Sinn Féin the weapons are gone, and since they cannot be held accountable for the actions of fringe republican groups, and unless evidence emerges that Sinn Féin have lied in their claims (which would be very politically damaging), this would effectively remove any excuse unionists parties might have about decommissioning as an obstacle. After all, should they insist the IRA still has weapons, one only need reply "prove it". Although proof that the IRA has disarmed all of it's weapons is impossible, proving that it still has weapons, while admittedly difficult, is still very possible.

And here we go again. Having just made the case for the benefit of "a significant reduction in threat", and how utter and complete disarming may not strictly be what is needed, you revert immediately to a call for the absolute.

I honestly don't remember saying that utter and complete disarming may not be needed. In any case perhaps it isn't. But it certainly wouldn't hurt the present situation, and it would leave the unionist camp without an excuse to share power. That, combined with the fact that it should have happened already, leaves no compelling reason (IMO) why the IRA should continue to hold onto their arms. Also, you say absolute. I say it's just another step in the peace process.

Now you ask what I think the Unionists will do. I honestly don't know. They make take exactly the actions some people here have suggested, that they would simply find something else to hold up the assembly, or that they might say that the assurances "aren't good enough". The difference is that I would say that this isn't a good enough reason for them to hold up the assembly.

So I'm more inclined to say that while its a lovely theory you propose, the reality is that the bad guys generally don't get given the benefit of the doubt that we are willing to extend to others when we tend to find the allegations to be less than proven.

Yes indeed. However returning to that hypothetical Fianna Fáil situation, if those same thugs were demonstrated to have Fianna Fáil connections, then your assertion that they were FF thugs would hold more weight.

If you asserted that they were SF/IRA thugs then yes, I would be more inclined to believe you. However, if you had no evidence to back this up, then (although I would have my suspicions) I could not in good faith ascribe responsibility to the IRA arbitrarily. It's a measured trust.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Many in Ireland have difficulty with the IRA holding on to weapons. The situation is that we have stale mate in Northern Ireland. Difficulties need to be overcome?

Yesssss.....

and I'm asking if we do that by holding an absolute position, or one of compromise....

But democracy is democracy and it derserves repect.

Now, there's a new angle.

So, you're saying that if the people vote SF, that should be respected tand they should not be removed from the Assembly for non-compliance on the decomissioning issue as this would not be respecting democracy...

Jeez Cork, the more you post on this, the more you seem to be contradicting your "weapons must go" stance......

But, there is a problem - these 2 partys are not engaging with each other.

Yes, thats what we're discussing here. We don't really need to be reminded.

They will have to get together and compromise.

So, its compromise then? The weapons should not form an insurmountable block. There should be some movement from Sinn Fein, and these ridiculous "complete disarmament" / "disband entirely" absolutist positions should go too????

But thats not what you've been saying up to now....you've been saying that the weapons must go, and so should the army itself, and that if they don't do this an assembly without Sinn Fein would be a valid option.

Surely you can see my confusion???

So what is causing the impasse? Illegal Arms?lack of trust?

A number of things are causing the impasse, including both of these.

Why are such arms needed. Which is more important IRA weaponary or the Good Friday Agreement?

Who cares why or if they're needed.

Either we respect democracy, and compromise on the fact that there are guns, or we don't compromise on the gun issue, kick Sinn Fein out and end up disrespecting democracy !!!

Hey - I'm only applying your logic....

Likewise, what purpose do punishment beatings or racketeering funfill?

Again....who cares. Either compromise, and respect democracy, or don't compromise, and therefore don't respect democracy.

It all boils down to working the GFA and its up to the people of NI to decide on the future of NI.

Yeas, it does indeed. But I'm asking if this should be done by compromise - by accepting that the guns aren't going to disappear tomorrow - or by absolutism - which is disrespecting the public's democratic choice by banning SF from the assembly until such times as they meet teh demands of the opposition.

Which is it to be? You are arguing in favour of both, and all I'm trying to do is get you to realise that this is nothing but waffle - you vacillate between one and the other from sentence to sentence, but don't seem to realise that the entire issue is about how to move forward.

But SF, DUP and Others have a duty to work the agreement.
It was endoursed by the majority of people North & South.

Yes, we know all of this, but its still not answering the question you were asked.

Do they work the agreement through compromise, or absolutism?

jc

Cork

Do they work the agreement through compromise, or absolutism?

Both SF & the DUP are hardliners. They will be absolutist. This will impde any hope of progress.

Maybe, there is scope to implement a timetable to decommission.

I am quiet hopeful that both will compromise (it is indeed a much over used word)

(But I would be more absolutist on punishment beatings & racketeering.)

bonkey

So what you're saying is that these guys are absolutists, which is the problem.

They need to be more willing to compromise....

Except that you support the absolutism of at least one of the sides on the only issue which you've even acknowledged to be a problem with regards to a lack of compromise.

So, you're saying that you think they should compromise on the stuff that you think they shouldn't compromise on?????

You're at it again!!!!!!

I don't know if you think your wording is clever, or if you just honestly don't realise how utterly self-contradictory what you're saying is when you analyse it beyond the sound-bite level.

Which is it - either they should compromise on the sticking points, or they shouldnt compromise???

Thats all I'm asking. Thats all I've been trying to get an answer to since we started this.

Yes they should, or no they shouldnt??????

You'd swear it was hard to give a straight answer to a simple question or something. THis may be the politics forum, but that doesn't mean that we expect everyone to speak like a politician.

Stand by your own convictions. Hell, show that you even have some to stand by, and just give a straight answer to a straight question :

Should the DUP compromise with Sinn Fein regarding the decomissioning of the IRA, or should they insist on nothing short of 100%, verified, total decomissioning???

If it makes it easier, you can answer this question instead :

Should the DUP compromise with Sinn Fein regarding the continued existence of the IRA, or should they insist on nothing short of 100%, verified, total disbanding???

Yes or no Cork...compromise or no compromise. But seriously....if you're only going to spout more self-contradicting platitudes that dance around the issue, spare us all and don't bother.

Mighty_Mouse

Very nicely put Bonkey.

Its something I've being saying in here for a long time. Bland "we should all get along"/"Sinn Fein are savages!" statements are useless.

Neither have any effect on who their aim and contribute nothing to a discussion on how the northern peace process should progress.

Cork in fairness you have been contradicting yourself for so long now, I doubt you understand some of your own reasons and opinions,

In your rush to beat the Shinners down , your losing sight of democracy!

I mean how could anyone at this stage of the peace process call for section 31 to be re-established. !!!! I mean Paisley himself wouldnt be able to say it with a straight face!:rolleyes:

Personally I believe the DUP to be capable of compromise. Looking into the long-term future of NI politics, Paisley wont be around much longer and therefore his "absolute" bigotry wont be either.

There are many younger politicians in the DUP like the Robinison, Dodds, Wilson, Donaldson etc who appear to be more pragmatic in how they achieve their goals. i.e refusing to talk to ppl will get them no where.

Remember the DUP nor Sinn Fein dont have to ever like each other for a fuctional democracy to work in NI. Most opposition parties around the world the the government and oppose them etc etc etc

Also, in fairness Sinn Fein have done nothing but compromise and move forward since the start of this process. Knowing exactly what your party stands for (32 county....) does not rule out compromise. Therfore I think its unfair to describe the Shinners are "absolute".

I'm not sure what else Sinn Fein have to offer at the moment in NI. I believe they've have done everything within their power to get the government up and running.

Unless the DUP decide to enter power I dont see a resolution to the current impass in the short-term.

At the moment the DUP are campaigning for a renegotiation of the GFA which is'nt gonna happen. How long it will take them to realise this is anyones guess

Mighty_Mouse

http://www.dup2win.com/

As for the DUP learning to compromise!!!!!

They just refuse to talk with Sinn Fein. I mean what is Sinn Fein supposed to do! Blaming the Shinners for the current situaiton is not on

Cork

Originally posted by bonkey


Yes or no Cork...compromise or no compromise. But seriously....if you're only going to spout more self-contradicting platitudes that dance around the issue, spare us all and don't bother.

In a word "Yes". I feel the DUP are thawing.

Also, in fairness Sinn Fein have done nothing but compromise and move forward since the start of this process.".

I really think SF needs to influence the IRA on racketeering and punishment beatings. Has SF even an openion on racketeering and punishment beatings?

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
In a word "Yes".

Excellent. Thank you. (Wasn't hard, was it)

Seeing as you favour compromise, could you please stop with this line of constantly posting that the IRA must give up all of their weapons, and should disband because there is no place for them in a democratic process.

If you support compromise, then show it. Stop making absolutist statements and start making an argument in favour of what you support instead.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Blaming the Shinners for the current situaiton is not on

Blaming the Shinners exclusively for the current situation is not on. They are far from blameless though.

jc

Mighty_Mouse

I would prefer to see the DUP coming to an agreement with the SDLP. I would also bring back section 31 to stop SF from making political capital out of any exclusion.

Why not just let the alliance and womens coalition run the country!!!:D SDLP dont have any significant electorate at the mo.

Even if the DUP and SDLP came to an agreement. What agreement could possible run the northern governement?

Would you seriously bring back section 31?

You realy sound like a staunch DUP (but then again loads of SDLP also do in their hatred of SF)

In a word "Yes". I feel the DUP are thawing

:eek:

You believe in comp? :eek:

DUP thawing - show one sign that they are!!!!! But I think LT they might

Has SF even an openion on racketeering and punishment beatings?

Is IRA smuggling petrol and ciggarettes really whats stoping the GFA being implmented?

Punishment beatings - need a police force that the community(ALL of NI ) accepts. IRA wont stop policing their own areas until you provide them with an alternative.

As for SF opinnions -- ask them

Mighty_Mouse

Blaming the Shinners exclusively for the current situation is not on. They are far from blameless though.

What can SF do to help the peace process recover its momentum?

pigeonbutler

If Gerry Adams wasn't in the IRA surely our ridiculously harsh libel laws would allow him to make a mint sueing some of the many newspaper editors and book editors who routinely give detailed accounts of his IRA career.

In our courts one has a case for libel against anyone who publishes anything which defames them if it cannot be proved true beyond the balance of probabilities.

I'll take the example of Ed Maloney's book Secret History of the IRA. Here's a portion from a review of it.

Taken form a review of the book by Eamonn McCann
http://www.swp.ie/resources/Eamonn%20McCann%20reviews%20Ed%20Malony.htm
Moloney casts a colder eye, he has reported on the Provos for more than twenty years. Sinn Fein supporters began rubbishing his book months before he delivered the final draft.

However, it's evident from the text that he has received unprecedented co-operation from members and ex-members of the IRA.

Shadow

The shadow of Gerry Adams falls across almost every page. Moloney recounts his IRA career, in detail. Adams remains a member of the Army Council today.

Adams insists that he was never in the IRA, that his time in republicanism has been spent exclusively in Sinn Fein.

He isn't fazed by the fact that he was flown to London by the Royal Air Force in 1972 as part of an IRA delegation meeting British officials for truce talks. That's irrelevant, he'll insist.

He doesn't know why both the British and the IRA chief of staff at the time, Sean MacStiofain, had it in their minds that he was an IRA delegate.

In part, of course, it's just that Adams, like many another who has come through a guerrilla phase en route to political respectability, doesn't want the grisly details of the operations he took part in dragged out for public inspection.

The section of the book that sparked most intense republican rage when it was released concerned Adams's involvement in the affair of the Unknowns and the Disappeared in the early 1970s.

According to Moloney, Adams, as Belfast Brigade commander, established a number of self-sustaining secret cells, the Unknowns, reporting directly to himself, to handle the problem of informers whose punishment might embarrass the movement.