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

bonkey

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Because to make such an allegation your view of republicanism must be twisted beyond repair at this stage!

One could equally say that to make the alternate allegation - that some terrorism is acceptable while other terrorism is not - is equally a POV which is "twisted beyond repair".

For them to be different, you'd have to be arguing that terrorism in the name of a political ideal that you believe in (i.e. republicanism in this case) is somehow excusable, whilst terrorism in the name of a religious ideal that you believe in (i.e. extremist/fundamentalist Islam in this case) is not.

And if you're not saying that, then either both the IRA and Al Qaeda's terrorist activities are or are not acceptable....which is, strangely enough, proving that a similarity exists

Scale has nothing to do with it, unless you want to argue that its ok to terrorise as long as you kill less than some threshold value, but that once you cross that it isn't.


jc

Villain

Originally posted by bonkey

Scale has nothing to do with it, unless you want to argue that its ok to terrorise as long as you kill less than some threshold value, but that once you cross that it isn't.


jc

Nobody is saying anything is ok Bonkey, we'r just saying there not the same!!

ReefBreak

Originally posted by irish1
Nobody is saying anything is ok Bonkey, we'r just saying there not the same!!

We know that you're saying that they're not the same, but so far, you haven't given any reasons why that might be the case. WHY are they so different?

bonkey

Originally posted by irish1
Nobody is saying anything is ok Bonkey, we'r just saying there not the same!!

They both terrorise. They both have killed innocents in the name of what they believe in.

Exactly how does the scale make any difference unless you're saying its "less unacceptable" to kill/terrorise X rather than Y people......which I made the mistake of not phrasing as a double-negative because - quite frankly - I perfer the blunt honesty of dropping both negatives.

Either it is more acceptable (see, cutting out the double negative, so its the same thing) to kill/terrorise fewer people or it isn't.

I do not accept that any level of terrorism has any level of acceptability, so the scale is not an issue from my perspective.

Maybe you can explain to me why scale is a relevant issue if you are agreeing that terrorism in any form is not acceptable.

jc

Villain

Originally posted by bonkey
Maybe you can explain to me why scale is a relevant issue if you are agreeing that terrorism in any form is not acceptable.

jc

Because it sets them apart, also are Al Queda on a ceasfire??

mike65

I dont think this is getting us anywhere but a bomb does'nt care who planted it or who it kills. IRA, Al Quada
whoever....

Mike.

monument

Originally posted by ReefBreak
But to recap:
IRA are terrorists.
Al Qaeda are terrorists.
IRA have intentionally murdered innocent civilians as a means of adavancing a "cause".
AL Qaeda have intentionally murdered innocent civilians as a means of adavancing a "cause".

QED.

If were talking about murdered innocent civilians as a means of advancing a "cause"….


- The US has intentionally murdered innocent civilians as a means of advancing a "cause". (I could add to that, but the US is the most high profile.)

So under your reasoning the US must be “terrorists”, and must be like both Al Qaeda and the IRA???


"Why don't you describe terrorists as terrorists?

As part of a long-standing policy to avoid the use of emotive words, we do not use terms like 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' unless they are in a direct quote or are otherwise attributable to a third party. We do not characterize the subjects of news stories but instead report their actions, identity and background so that readers can make their own decisions based on the facts. " - http://about.reuters.com/aboutus/editorial/

sceptre

Originally posted by irish1
Your trying to simplfy something that is very complicated!

In fairness, he does appear to have simplified it pretty well.

Originally posted by monument
So under your reasoning the US must be “terrorists”, and must be like both Al Qaeda and the IRA???

They are when they terrorise. Political assassination isn't terrorism unless it terrorises. Killing innocent civilians is terrorism when it terrorises. An attack on a military installation isn't terrorism unless it seeks to terrorise the civilian population. It's relatively simple, regardless of any warnings about situations being complicated.

Again you appear to be justifying violence on the basis that someone else is doing it too, regardless of whether this is your actual intention or not.

Villain

Originally posted by sceptre
In fairness, he does appear to have simplified it pretty well.

I disagree.

Theres no way you can take what the 2 organisations have being involved and simplfy it to 4 sentences

Originally posted by sceptre

They are when they terrorise. Political assassination isn't terrorism unless it terrorises. Killing innocent civilians is terrorism when it terrorises. An attack on a military installation isn't terrorism unless it seeks to terrorise the civilian population. It's relatively simple, regardless of any warnings about situations being complicated.

Again you appear to be justifying violence on the basis that someone else is doing it too, regardless of whether this is your actual intention or not.

Your appearing to say that the USA are only terrorists when they terrorise, surely that go's fo the IRA too, who have being on a ceasfire now for several years???

surely that go's fo the IRA too, who have being on a ceasfire now for several years???

Kneecapping and other beatings are terrorism by the way.
Having stated that, there is absolutely no point, in coming back with a retort along the lines of "oh the loyalists are at it on a bigger scale" , for to do so would seem to be evidence of what sceptre said, it certainly provides no moral justification.

To give them their due, the IRA in their core form have been very disiplined in the last number of years,and I personally think it's doubtfull, that they will go back to the bombing and shooting ( though there have been suspicious incidents in the interim ) they know the writing is on the wall as regards the numbers situation in NI.

I'll quote you something I heard an orangeman saying on the 12th which I thought was funny and he was carrying a sandwich board with some quote of doom and damnation from the bible...
He shouted " Beware the catholics, for they are breeding like rabbits "
I've plenty of experience of NI to know, its too easy for people in the south to pontificate on the subject without knowing the true feelings of people on the ground up there.

The "RAH" should halt all their activities and give the DUP the biggest political headache of their lives.

And that headache would be, the fact that they would have absolutely no grounds at all for avoiding working with Sinn Féin.

monument

Originally posted by sceptre
Again you appear to be justifying violence on the basis that someone else is doing it too, regardless of whether this is your actual intention or not.

Yea, it looks that way, but I'm not, I'm trying to attack the notion that all so called “terrorists” are the same.

Using the word ‘terrorists’ in the first place, never mind putting them all under the one label of “terrorists”, is stupid.

A terrorist or terrorist group is “one that engages in acts or an act of terrorism”, which is “the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons”…

This could just as well mean one who starts, or enacts in, anything from a pub fight to an unlawful war.

So just like most labels, it was really developed (to what is currently is) to bunch a number of non-related groups or people together – that “terrorists” are some how more wrong for killing people then any other person or group.

I don’t think anybody or group should kill any other anybody or group… so why would I vote for SF? Well because it’s an Irish party with views closer then any other party to mine. Although I don’t share all of their views and my views are not set in stone – for example I’d consider an independent Northern Ireland just as much as I’d consider a united one.

sceptre

Originally posted by monument
This could just as well mean one who starts, or enacts in, anything from a pub fight

Even accepting your definition for the moment I'd like to hear why you say this in particular is so.

Villain

Originally posted by irish1
Your appearing to say that the USA are only terrorists when they terrorise, surely that go's fo the IRA too, who have being on a ceasfire now for several years???

Any Reply sceptre??

Originally posted by irish1
Any Reply sceptre??

I replied:

Kneecapping and other beatings are terrorism by the way.

and while I'm at it, do the IRA have licences for their guns and explosives or do they hold them illegally ??

Mighty_Mouse

The "RAH" should halt all their activities and give the DUP the biggest political headache of their lives.

And that headache would be, the fact that they would have absolutely no grounds at all for avoiding working with Sinn Féin.

IMO this has to be the most unbelievable statement ever. Its been said to me before but every time it shocks the same.!! Simply, how can anybody believe this.. I mean its completely laughable on so many fronts:

1. the DUP or unionists for that matter dont "need" a reason for not sharing government and participating in a democractic government. Sure if there were no reasons at all they'd make some up!! (or the PSNI/British government would)

2. Sinn Fein are better of concentrating on their own agenda cos it has been the one proved to make the most progress. For years the SDLP have operated an agenda of pacifying unionist and british governement demands. It just doesnt work. Because every time you make a historic movement - the goalposts move! (with nothing in return................eg decision to join policing board,........ it could be argued that if nationallists had been united in their demands for reform .......that we'd have more than a change of uniform by now.)


ps.

If the IRA "officially" disbanded in the morning. I gurantee by the next week unioinists would be calling for "proof" that theyve gone away, a cooling of period under british rule while they "make sure" theyve gone away. De-commissioning would be drummed up and focused on. Leaks would start reporting IRA activity (with claims rapidly withdrawn so as not to have to proove them), Inside sources and MI5 would claim that Gerry Adams had bought 7 sticks of dynamite in 1977...................the list of crazy claims would continue.

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse

1. the DUP or unionists for that matter dont "need" a reason for not sharing government and participating in a democractic government.

With respect, the excuses that the DUP can use not to work with Sinn Féin are finite.
Taking weapons out of the equasion ( what need is there for them, except a threat to go back to bombing which is un acceptable in a democracy ) would make the DUP very, very uneasy.

It is simple enough to come up with a system of verification, better than the one that is there now, in that some one could be put there to verify, the distruction of the weapons.
That someone would be a person or persons that would make the DUP look very silly if they said they were lying.

Thats the type of headache for the DUP I'm talking about.

Sinn Fein are better of concentrating on their own agenda cos it has been the one proved to make the most progress. For years the SDLP have operated an agenda of pacifying unionist and british governement demands. It just doesnt work. Because every time you make a historic movement - the goalposts move! (with nothing in return................eg decision to join policing board,........ it could be argued that if nationallists had been united in their demands for reform .......that we'd have more than a change of uniform by now.)

Errr I thought it was John Hume who made it possible, it was his persusive powers that got the UK govt to give SinnFéin a chance.

If the IRA "officially" disbanded in the morning. I gurantee by the next week unioinists would be calling for "proof" that theyve gone away, a cooling of period under british rule while they "make sure" theyve gone away. De-commissioning would be drummed up and focused on. Leaks would start reporting IRA activity (with claims rapidly withdrawn so as not to have to proove them), Inside sources and MI5 would claim that Gerry Adams had bought 7 sticks of dynamite in 1977...................the list of crazy claims would continue.

You are probably right, they probably would attempt to clutch at whatever straws possible.
But it would be seen for what it is.
Intransigence.

Is it not better from a nationalist point of view for the Unionists to be seen to be intransigent that for Sinn Féin to be seen as such??
The status Quo remains the same in either scenario at least for the time being.

Mighty_Mouse

With respect, the excuses that the DUP can use not to work with Sinn Féin are finite.

I completely disagree.

It is simple enough to come up with a system of verification, better than the one that is there now,

If its simple, you volunteer a simple system of verification which the unionists wont tear down in order to avoid a government.

in that some one could be put there to verify, the distruction of the weapons

:eek:

Am.... um ... lol lol lol already been done. That little french fella who was agreed upon as the independant examiner only for unionists to change their minds and find that he doesnt know what he's on about and he's probaly not that independant anyways. Oh ya and the words he uses aren't good enough to what we agreed !!!unless you propose Paisley himself to this postion I dont think unionists will agree.

That someone would be a person or persons that would make the DUP look very silly if they said they were lying

Again. Im not sure where your coming from here but heres a little secret: the unionists dont care if there caught lying and neither does their electorate!

Errr I thought it was John Hume who made it possible, it was his persusive powers that got the UK govt to give SinnFéin a chance.

John Hume has played an important role in NI political peace process. But as for persuading the british gov to talk to republicans!!! What else were they gonna do.

You are probably right, they probably would attempt to clutch at whatever straws possible.

Any argument which centres around republicans trying to make unioinists look bad in order to embarrass them into cooperation wont work cos unionists dont care.

But it would be seen for what it is.

Im sorry if I sound dismissive here but if you have failed to see unionism for what it is already then theres no point.

What happens when after the IRA disband and the general media clutch onto "prooving" the IRA have gone away!! I bet you and the rest of the posters who are born in Ireland but dont believe the north should be returned would be postin that the unionist position is "understandable" . Who do those Shinners think they are not prooving that the IRA is finished. ....... lets get some independant examiner to .....................................

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse

Am.... um ... lol lol lol already been done. That little french fella who was agreed upon as the independant examiner only for unionists to change their minds and find that he doesnt know what he's on about and he's probaly not that independant anyways. Oh ya and the words he uses aren't good enough to what we agreed !!!unless you propose Paisley himself to this postion I dont think unionists will agree.

My point is that they are not all gone.
only some of them are.
What are they holding on to them for if they are not going to use them??

If they were all gone, then that little french or Canadian fellah would say so and Paisley would have to find another increasingly lame excuse to not work with Sinn Féin.
The intransigence would be easily seen on their side then.
It's hard to argue on the side of the IRA when they have weapons.

Any argument which centres around republicans trying to make unioinists look bad in order to embarrass them into cooperation wont work cos unionists dont care.

Well it has worked thus far as by your logic, their own government wouldn't have implimented any aspect of the GFA if it hadn't.
Indeed the prisoners wouldnt be released.

I bet you and the rest of the posters who are born in Ireland but dont believe the north should be returned would be postin that the unionist position is "understandable" . Who do those Shinners think they are not prooving that the IRA is finished. ....... lets get some independant examiner to .....................................

The majority of the people of this island want the IRA to give up their weapons and the majority of the people on this island never agreed with their bombing and shooting campaign.
So For your intentions, it's best to work within that parameter other wise any grouping could get what they want with guns, you would have anarchy.
Does the opinion of the people of the rest of the island that you want NI to join up with not matter?

I would suggest you pay attention to their opinions.

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthman
It's hard to argue on the side of the IRA when they have weapons.

When no-one but you knows what you have, how do you prove that you've gotten rid of all of it?

Lets assume for a moment that the IRA went full-force into decomissioning tomorrow and decomissioned unheard-of amounts of weapons, after which they declared "that was all of them".

How can they prove to the skeptics that they aren't lieing and that they still have a cache of weapons lieing around? Hell, how can they even prove it to the non-skeptics?

Continuing on from that, lets assume they could prove this. How do they also prove that they don't have a cash stash and contacts ready to sell them new weapons should they wish them?

If you look at it in that perspective, you have to ask "what benefit does decomissioning bring"??? It does not prove that the IRA have forsaken violence, nor that they have disarmed. It cannot prove these things.

So while you may be correct and say that the excuses the DUP et all are finite in number, some of those excuses are infinite in reusability. As long as they continue to insist the IRA must disarm completely, they can never run out of an excuse to use, because it is impossible for the IRA to prove that they have ever done what was requested of them.

jc

sceptre

Originally posted by irish1
Any Reply sceptre??

I thought Earthman's was good enough to run with.

Originally posted by bonkey

So while you may be correct and say that the excuses the DUP et all are finite in number, some of those excuses are infinite in reusability.
jc

But not infinite in their acceptability Bonkey.
If the IRA were to decommission all or most of their weapons in the morning, that would be most probably a collosal amount of weaponary compared to what they have done to date.
That would be verified and accompanied by a statement that all of their weapons have been decommissioned.

Now I'm assuming that, that is not enough for the DUP, but it would show them up.
I mean I know what they are like, I don't need mighty mouse to tell me.

In those circumstances the British Government on the other hand might not have infinite patience with the D.U.P
Why hold on to the weapons, they are hardly a bargaining tool unless the threat is there to use them.
In that instance they hold the process up at this stage, not help it along.

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthman
f the IRA were to decommission all or most of their weapons in the morning,

Hold on a second...I haven't seen a single person before this saying that the IRA only needs to get rid of most of its guns, or that the problem is that the IRA has too many guns.

Every single person talking about decomissioning hithertofore has been saying that the IRA must disarm (and preferably disband as well) in order for the peace process to continue, and that it is not acceptable to hold the threat of violence as a tool in a democracy.

Are you changing your tune now? Are you saying that as long as the IRA reduce their weaponry and only hold a lesser threat of violence that it would be acceptable????

If not, then this line of reasoning you're offering is entirely spurious until you can answer my question on how to prove the unproveable.

If, on the other hand, you are instead saying that its ok for a lesser threat of violence to be held, along with an unquantifiable amount of weapons that we know to be less than it was....then you're beginning to see the point I'm making

Then you have to ask yourself exactly where the limit is. How many weapons do you need handed over before you'll accept that there aren't too many left to be unacceptable?

Damn - back to an unanswerable question again.....lets move on.

That would be verified and accompanied by a statement that all of their weapons have been decommissioned.

There you go using that word "all" again, and I thought we were making such progress.....

Why hold on to the weapons, they are hardly a bargaining tool unless the threat is there to use them.

Well, as I've been trying to illustrate, there is nothing to be gained in handing them over until people stop talking in absolutes like "completely disarm", or "completely forswear violence" because such absolutes are unreachable.

And its not just the DUP I'm referring to. As I've pointed out above, yours is the first post I can recall seeing where we had "most" couched alongside "all", albeit only making a brief appaearance before "all" took back pride of place.

So we have both the public and the no-compromise Unionists all asking for the impossible, and the latter offering to consider where to go next once this impossibility has been achieved. Sounds like a great deal to me.

You're dead right in saying that the threat of violence still looms. It would still loom if the IRA handed over every single weapon they possessed - both in the sense that some people wouldn't believe they had done so, and in the sense that they could relatively easily acquire more should they need to. So again, one has to ask what getting rid of the weapons would achieve, even were it possible to prove that they had done so.

In conclusion, there is nothing to be gained in handing over weapons at the moment, because it is impossible to reach the targets set for decomissioning. Therefore, it makes more tactical sense to hold on to them until a fairer and more realistic goal is established.

Thats what the weapons are for. They are there as a bargaining chip to be offered up when the gains received are commensurate with the significance of the action. That hasn't come remotely close to happening yet.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey

In conclusion, there is nothing to be gained in handing over weapons at the moment, because it is impossible to reach the targets set for decomissioning. Therefore, it makes more tactical sense to hold on to them until a fairer and more realistic goal is established.

Thats what the weapons are for. They are there as a bargaining chip to be offered up when the gains received are commensurate with the significance of the action. That hasn't come remotely close to happening yet.

jc

I completely disagree.
I can see that as the angle the IRA would take, but then they are terrorists on ceasefire.
To have the weapons in the first place as a tactical bargaining tool implies their use or an end to the ceasefire if they don't get what they want. and that is wrong .
If it doesn't they are not a bargaining chip,and one may as well be talking about de commisioning jelly beans.

My point in the last two posts is simply, to call the DUP's bluff, get rid of the arms, and all of them.

OK fine, theres no way of knowing they are all gone for sure but theres going to be verifiable evidence of a substantial event which could be consistant with what the security forces on both sides of the border estimate what the IRA have.

At that point together with an end to punishment shootings and beatings, Paisley has a head ache.

Mighty_Mouse

"""But not infinite in their acceptability Bonkey.
If the IRA were to decommission all or most of their weapons in the morning, that would be most probably a collosal amount of weaponary compared to what they have done to date."""

This "infinite in their acceptability" is BS imo. If you find the excuses, false accusations and smokescreens acceptable now, you always will, fullstop.

For example, If you believe that raids at stormont, castlerea accusations and last weeks "pub brawl" crap are believable enough to stop the implementation of the GFA then you probaly will always believe the excuses.

If you believe that an important issue is whether Gerry Adams was in the IRA or not (important enough to warrant halting the GFA implementation) then you will always believe the excuses.

At this stage of the game theres no such thing as "if they only do xyz ill be happy to support them". Theres been so much thats happened already to warrant any given person supporting the work of Sinn Fein (at the very least in NI).

The ppl who knock freely will always continue to do so. I mean from my point of view this "official" surrendering craic is a redundant enough excercise in its own right.

I have to agree with Martin MacGuinness when he said it would not be enough for some unionists if ex IRA men were to commit Hari-Kari in front of them.

Although Im starting to think the same of some southern Irish people.


Earthman I respect your right to an opinion but if you honesltly think this idea of giving Ian Paisley a headache is a feasible one , your raving!

PS

Republicans policing their own areas wont stop until their is a police force that nationalists in the NI respect.. Also remember that any beating that is done in NI at the moment is blamed on the IRA and any estimates or figures are grossly overstated


Consider you focus on decommissioning. Whats the point in focusing on something that can NEVER be resolved. The purpose of decommissioning is what is important. ie to show that the armed struggle of the IRA is over for good

(please please please oh god please dont just turn around and say "well if their war is over .....................why do they need the arms ................") I refer you to the hari-kari statement and the looking for a surrender on one side lark that also wont work!

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse

Earthman I respect your right to an opinion but if you honesltly think this idea of giving Ian Paisley a headache is a feasible one , your raving!

Well the guns aren't a solution at all I'm not raving when I'm saying that.
My point is that the U.K government and the world at large can see right through the thin veil of bluster that is the DUP thinking on Sinn Féin.
Indeed a great deal of of unionists did when the GFA was passed initially.

Whats changed in the meantime??
Why have those unionists who voted for the GFA turned in such numbers to the DUP?
The answer is clear,the "Rah" danced to Paisleys tune and gave him , pardon the pun the ammunition to fuel their defection.
Now they should forget about misguided misconceptions on what de-commissioning is and continue to encourage their flock to breed like rabbits, as they have been doing.
Paisleys crowd are too fond of the condom.
Nationalists should Make un protected love not war and time will sort this situation out

I take your point regarding the police force but again, time should sort that out given the current bias in recruitment and Nualla o Loans excelent ombudmanship in that area.

rasper

Bertie and Gerry two peas in a pod
It is blatantly clear the reasons for Bertie’s and Mickey’s comments are timed for the elections, the fact that SF have
more support than the other gangsters (PDs the moral FF) is no great surprise.
In fact due to those reasons I'd nearly give SF my vote, although I'll stop short because I feel they'll have
enough support already. Everyone knows Gerry was probably involved in the violence, if not directly then indirectly.
Same as Bertie and the rest may or may not have taken any bribes/donations, but certainly was aware what was going on.
May not be the same scale as the dark deeds in the name of republicanism, but are they people that should preach to us.

Politics is all about illusions and tactful deceit

Cork

I think it is a positive thaing that political partys down here are fighting back aganist SF/IRA.

Gerry Adams may think that - he is the leader of a political party - but that political army has links to an illegal organisation that is armed to the hilt.

An organisation that killed a member of the Gardai down in Adare.

FF, FG, PDs etc are doing the public a favour by reminding people of SF/IRA.

rasper

With respect FF,PD,+FG are not in the business of doing favours , well not for the public anyway

Cork

Well, Gerry Adams used the ocasion of his partys Ard Fheis to call for the early release of those who were convicted in relation to the killing of Gerry McCabe.



What favours has SF/IRA done to the unionists over 30 years but to deepen devision?

rasper

Not going to go on a pro SF-rant as my only point is I hate to be talked down upon by the present shower.
Our local and national government stink with corruption, and Bertie/mickey would do well to apply some moral housekeeping to their own parties before criticizing the electorates choice.
They obviously have no respect for the democratic opinion of voters
e.g. Nice referendum
Anyone who votes SF do so for the own reasons, I suspect a large portion do so because of the alienation of large sections of the population from the post civil war political parties.
Thats democracy