Sinn Fein/IRA members found with list of TDs

jonny68

bonkey wrote:

For a man telling others to educate themselves, here's an extract from the exact text of the GFA :



Care to explain to me how that gels with your assertion that there was no comittment to achieve full decomissioning? Or have you some other suggestion as to how total disarmament can be verifiably achieved?

What the GFA omitted to specify was a timeframe within which this had to be obtained. It set a 2-year deadline, but the wording didn't necessarily commit to decomissioning within that timeframe. Since the expiration of that timeframe, the obligation to work towards decomissioning has arguably lapsed but the commitment to achieve total disarmament has not.

You advocated holding the guns in order to facilitate a return to active war should total reunification under a socialist government not be peacefully achievable. That is a sentiment that is expressly in contradiction with the GFA, so no matter how many times you insist that you would like to see it succeed, your base stance makes success of hte GFA impossible.


No, it hasn't. Not by either side.


Your attitude of "if you don't agree with me, you're inexperienced, underinformed, and just plain wrong to boot" , coupled with your initial reaction to being given a warning for breaking the rules means that you merit little more.

jc

Inexperienced,underinformed,plain wrong to boot ha ha your something else,my knowledge of all things Republican is vastly greater than yours will ever be,didnt you say Socialism and Republicanism have nothing in common?Total disarnment was never really going to be an option for the Provos despite the "official wording" as outlined in the GFA,(if SF convince the Army Council to do otherwise there will be a further split and it will be considerably bigger than the last split in the 1990`s)..if that was the case they`d have decommissoned all their guns at the first act...yes i am advocating a return to war should this process fail,is there any other viable alternative to take?should the Ra should just give up,sit back and say "ah well we tried our best" do you think the majority of Nationalist people would find this acceptable?Do you think the majority of Nationalist people in the north of Ireland want to live under British rule as second class citizens while freestaters like you sit back and think its not your problem?dont you give a fcuk about your fellow countrymen and women?it seems you and unfortunately lots like you actually dont..ill say again if you or any of your family have ever experienced first hand whats it actually like to be involved in a conflict like this i bet your views would be totally different..freestaters who dont care about our fellow countrymen in the North are as bad as the British themselves,it digusts me to the pit of my stomach,you can issue warnings all you want to me on here,its only a iInternet forum,you think im gonna lose any sleep over it,you need to get yourself more educated about the conflict in the North Of Ireland..hey why dont you take a trip up to Ardoyne in North Belfast,or Crossmaglen in South Armagh and argue your point with the locals,im sure they`ll be in full agreement with you.......... :rolleyes:

jonny68

Johnny_the_fox wrote:

tell me this jonny68..



where in the north did you use to live and when did you live there?

I am from Derry. I have been splat on, punched and abused for being a catholic. But still I can I rise above the bigotry which the other side has put upon me. why? because I will not fall to their standards.

If anything you can learn from living in the north - life is more important.

For the record i lived in the Bogside in Derry in 1989 and i also spent a brief time in Belfast..rise above the bigotry,do you find that acceptable?you think its ok to be punched and abused because of your religion and not to do anything about it?you my friend are about the only person in my life ive ever heard of who has said something like that,vermin loyalists are sectarian scum and should be treated like such,i certainly would not stand idly by and allow myself to be absused by some sectarian loyalist scumbag and im amazed that anyone would... :eek:

jonny68

gandalf wrote:

Well maybe you should educate us and not bandy about personal abuse. This is a warning I see any more of this from you and I will decommission your access to this board for a week !

Personal abuse?what the hell are you on about?why would i want to bother educating people like you lot,do it yourself..you could start here http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/

i am voicing my opinion as a Republican and here you are thretening to ban me for a week,what is it getting too heated or something?instead of issuing threats why dont you give us your viewpoint,tell me your opinion on the conflict in the north of Ireland?do you think a peaceful resolution can be agreed on or do you think there will be a return to war?give me your input on how what you think the future holds in the north of Ireland...

gandalf

Banned for a week. That was a warning not a call to debate it!

Johnny_the_fox

blah blah no longer relevant blah

Victor

What if jonny is really a loyalist agent provocateur?

bonkey

jonny68 wrote:

didnt you say Socialism and Republicanism have nothing in common?

No, I didn't....but its unsurprising that you have to misstate what I said in order to make it out to be incorrect.

Total disarnment was never really going to be an option for the Provos despite the "official wording" as outlined in the GFA,

Jeez...only a couple of posts ago it wasn't in the GFA. Now it is in there, but I'm wrong for pointing that out....

This attitude also more or less proves what I've been saying all along. Your profession of hope that the GFA succeeds is nothing short of being hypocritical, given that you don't believe that "your" side should actually adhere to what they signed up to.

yes i am advocating a return to war should this process fail,

So....SF should not do what they comitted to do, which means the process can't suceed, and you'd advocate a return to war should it fail.

So, basically, you want a return to war.....but disagreeing with you is just uneducated. Well...you know what....if thats the case, I'm glad to be uneducated in your eyes.

is there any other viable alternative to take?

Other than a refusal to live up to what you negotiated, followed by a return to war when teh negotiated settlement fails to be lived up to?

Even asking that question shows that you have no real interest in any answer longer than two letters.

ill say again if you or any of your family have ever experienced first hand whats it actually like to be involved in a conflict like this i bet your views would be totally different..

Except that some of us have already said that we have, which you've conveniently ignored.

you think im gonna lose any sleep over it,

I couldn't care less. It might surprise you to learn that the rules aren't written to punish the offenders, they're written for the benefit of those who want to use this forum for its intended purpose.

jc

The Corinthian

jonny68 wrote:

Do you think the majority of Nationalist people in the north of Ireland want to live under British rule as second class citizens while freestaters like you sit back and think its not your problem?dont you give a fcuk about your fellow countrymen and women?

Ironically there’s probably more in common between Nationalist and Loyalist in the North than there is between Northern Nationalist’s and Southern Freestaters.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

the policy for the last ten years has been to bring the republican movement further and further into the political mainstream

By asking Sinn Fein to raise their standards to come into the political mainstream or by lowering our own standards of what the political mainstream should be?

thus making it harder for the republican movement to go back to war

Its hard for them to go back to war now. If they go back to war thousands of early release prisoners go back to jail - we have hostages to use against the IRA, lets not forget that. Theyll always threaten war if they dont get their way, SF will never ignore the fact that without the IRA theyd be a marginal player in the Republic rather than locked in negotiations with the Taoiseach, and because everyones too scared to ask Gerry Adams "Hey Gerry, why are Sinn Fein targeting TDs and crinimals in the south? Do you think convicted IRA men engaged in subversive activity should remain in the SF party? " there is absolutely zero pressure on Adams to stop such targeting. Thats not a process heading towards a better SF, its a continuation of the present.

Sinn fein can not hope to be in government north or south while this carry on

Oh no, what Ive heard is that we shouldnt stress out Adams about this. We need to relax, chill out. Its not that big a deal. We have to accept that enormous strides have been made by SF/IRA recently. Theyre not murdering people anymore. If you stress them out, then theyll go back to war. So sssh.

What I believe, however, is that taking the "until you completely copitulate and forget about retaining any strength for negotiation, you're always fully and totally wrong and unacceptable" road will do more damage in the long run.

Im not asking for capitulation - Im asking SF to respect the process they claim to want to be a part of. How can politics survive when the participants are actively undermining confidence in it by engaging in subversive and crinimal activity?

And a lack of a deal is even more worthless, no?

No deal is better than a bad deal that will break down 18 months down the line and reduce confidence in a negotiated settlement even further. All this deal is , is a document. Its meaningless. Whats required is the attitude to make a deal work. That doesnt exist yet. Paisley still wants to humiliate the IRA. Adams still doesnt have a problem with SF/IRA engaging in crinimal and subersive activity. Thats not the required attitude.

And so you'd see the way forward as breaking off negotiations with a demand that they must change them before anyone is going to try moving peace forward again?

I dont see how confronting Adams with the activities of his party is breaking of negotiations? If you dont tell someone that this is unacceptable, then theyre going to assume it is acceptable. Has anyone actually asked Adams what he thinks about this? Anyone challenged him to review the activities of his party in Dublin? You know, the basic questions any other democratic party leader would be asked in a similar situation?

If not why exactly should Adams care?

So the reality is that whether or not Paisley will try and help end the project, unless that is what we want, then we should not give him the opportunity to do so.

Which is *exactly* why we should challenge Adams on this. It provides some education to Adams that you know, this sort of thing isnt acceptable - so he might be a bit clued in that he shouldnt allow the IRA to give a Paisley an exscuse up north.

And on the other hand, assuming the IRA do give Paisley an exscuse to walk away we can be seen as being a tad more evenhanded when reminding Paisley that despite similar IRA activity, we criticised Adams and challenged him but we didnt walk away from the deal and thus he shouldnt walk away either.

Why this is such a terrible idea I dont know. Why are we focusing on the document when we should be concentrating on the participants?

Because sooner or later their voters will hold them to account.

Why? Ive been getting told we need to be understanding with SF/IRA. That to call Adams to account is to side, or at least be seen to side, with Paisley?

So were telling people that its okay for the IRA and SF to be linked. Its okay to vote for them into power. And were also telling them that anyone who criticises the IRA activity is a crank. Look at FF/PDs - they criticised the IRA activities and sniper at work signs last time round, where did that get them?

Theres absolutely no indication that voters will hold them to account. Theres nothing to hold them to account for. Their subversive activities are acceptable .

"Lads...stop voting for this shower, because they're really bad people. OK - the result will be that the Unionists will gain control of your lives again, and the peaceprocess will be dead and buried...but thats a small price to pay". Sorry...I can't see that happening.

Neither can I, but Northern Ireland is a sick society, the Republic isnt and its here that these activities have taken place.

They also know that threats to do so will risk irrevocably ending the Peace Process, which is why they generally don't make them.

The IRA lose too if they walk away - we have hostages in the shape of all those early release prisoners. If they want to go back to war, they can explain to their families why their sons, husbands and fathers have to go back to jail because some Dub SF activists were playing spy games and extorting crinimals in the Republic.

We managed it by realising that sometimes it is necessary to take the slow, careful path, putting up with the unacceptable for periods of time until the time is right to make your play against it. I believe thats what we see with this issue.

When does that time come Bonkey?

And how do you describe something as unacceptable and draw a line over it, when youve been meekly accepting it for years? Decades? Maybe by the time you make your play youve helped change peoples attitudes to the point where the majority dont see it as unacceptable.

dubadub

Get rid of the Thugs out of Dail Eireann. A Lot of Us Done. More of Us To Do.

Nuttzz

dubadub wrote:

A Lot of Us Done. More of Us To Do.

for membership of an illegal organisation????

Victor

jonny68 wrote:

Loyalist terrorists are still active

Did I see on one of today's papers that loyalists have decommissioned (to some extent)?

cdebru

Sand wrote:

By asking Sinn Fein to raise their standards to come into the political mainstream or by lowering our own standards of what the political mainstream should be?.

It's not like we have a bunch of saints up in leinster house anyway.

Sand wrote:

Its hard for them to go back to war now. If they go back to war thousands of early release prisoners go back to jail - we have hostages to use against the IRA, lets not forget that. Theyll always threaten war if they dont get their way, SF will never ignore the fact that without the IRA theyd be a marginal player in the Republic rather than locked in negotiations with the Taoiseach, and because everyones too scared to ask Gerry Adams "Hey Gerry, why are Sinn Fein targeting TDs and crinimals in the south? Do you think convicted IRA men engaged in subversive activity should remain in the SF party? " there is absolutely zero pressure on Adams to stop such targeting. Thats not a process heading towards a better SF, its a continuation of the present..

then whats your problem if you admit it would be hard for them to return to war
I have not heard the IRA threatening to return to war since the GFA

you use the word targetting as if they were preparing to assasinate them you know this is not the case if anything they were watching them
whos afraid to ask Gerry Adams hard questions everytime I see the Sunday Indo or evening herald they are having a go at sinn fein
not to mention Micheal Mcdowell

Sand wrote:

Oh no, what Ive heard is that we shouldnt stress out Adams about this. We need to relax, chill out. Its not that big a deal. We have to accept that enormous strides have been made by SF/IRA recently. Theyre not murdering people anymore. If you stress them out, then theyll go back to war. So sssh..

Who did you hear this from

Sand wrote:

Im not asking for capitulation - Im asking SF to respect the process they claim to want to be a part of. How can politics survive when the participants are actively undermining confidence in it by engaging in subversive and crinimal activity?.

what participants what activity

Sand wrote:

No deal is better than a bad deal that will break down 18 months down the line and reduce confidence in a negotiated settlement even further. All this deal is , is a document. Its meaningless. Whats required is the attitude to make a deal work. That doesnt exist yet. Paisley still wants to humiliate the IRA. Adams still doesnt have a problem with SF/IRA engaging in crinimal and subersive activity. Thats not the required attitude..

A vacuum where no progress is made will lead us back to where we came from I gaurantee it
It is not a threat it is a fact if people do not see politics making any kind of progress then they turn to armed action to change things I am not saying the provos would return to war but there are other groups waiting in the wings at the moment they have very little support but all it needs is a spark to ignite the situation and they will take advantage

Sand wrote:

I dont see how confronting Adams with the activities of his party is breaking of negotiations? If you dont tell someone that this is unacceptable, then theyre going to assume it is acceptable. Has anyone actually asked Adams what he thinks about this? Anyone challenged him to review the activities of his party in Dublin? You know, the basic questions any other democratic party leader would be asked in a similar situation? .

he said the other day that as far as he is concerned it is a bad conviction and one that would not be allowed to stand in any democracy

Sand wrote:

Why? Ive been getting told we need to be understanding with SF/IRA. That to call Adams to account is to side, or at least be seen to side, with Paisley?

So were telling people that its okay for the IRA and SF to be linked. Its okay to vote for them into power. And were also telling them that anyone who criticises the IRA activity is a crank. Look at FF/PDs - they criticised the IRA activities and sniper at work signs last time round, where did that get them?

Theres absolutely no indication that voters will hold them to account. Theres nothing to hold them to account for. Their subversive activities are acceptable ..

so you dont have faith in democracy or the intelligence of other people to make up their minds who to vote for

Sand wrote:

The IRA lose too if they walk away - we have hostages in the shape of all those early release prisoners. If they want to go back to war, they can explain to their families why their sons, husbands and fathers have to go back to jail because some Dub SF activists were playing spy games and extorting crinimals in the Republic..

What is your problem if you believe you have these hostages
spying on politicians is hardly a crime if it was then most journalists would be in jail
and there is no evidence that any criminals were being extorted

at the end of the day having someones name and address telephone number
and the name of the pub they drink in is not a crime
these guys were convicted because the judge viewed the tapes of their interviews they chose not to answer garda questions the judge drew an inference from that
the gardai said that they believed these men were in the IRA
A secret file was shown to the judge the men or their solictors could not view the file or refute what was in the file.
that is the evidence against them
if this was happening in gauntanamo bay people would be outraged but this is happening in our own country

Sand wrote:

When does that time come Bonkey?

And how do you describe something as unacceptable and draw a line over it, when youve been meekly accepting it for years? Decades? Maybe by the time you make your play youve helped change peoples attitudes to the point where the majority dont see it as unacceptable.

as far as I can see sand you would prefer the comfort of the past you are so anti republican that you would prefer if the war was still on and there was no peace process
at least then you could just go on your merry way never have to worry about republicans in government
or any of that stuff
even ten years after the first ceasefire after the GFA after the IRA have started to decomission their weapons and are negoiating the end of the IRA
you still cant see that times have moved on
you still wish for the past the war where everybody knew where they stood the certainties where no one had to trust anyone and republicans where the bad guys

cdebru

Victor wrote:

Did I see on one of today's papers that loyalists have decommissioned (to some extent)?

the LVf have done this before as a publicity stunt it did n't stop them from going on to kill more catholics

marco murphy

Victor wrote:

Did I see on one of today's papers that loyalists have decommissioned (to some extent)?

Bull,usual newspaper propaganda

The Corinthian

Poblachtach wrote:

Bull,usual newspaper propaganda

Like the propaganda that comes out from that pro-IRA newspaper who's name currently escapes me..? :rolleyes:

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

FTA69

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Wow! Round of applause! The weapons broken were 3 rifles and a musket. And by that I mean an actual musket, as in Davy Crocket. They subsequently went on to murder a nationalist in a sectarian attack as well as ending and resuming a ceasefire a few dozen times. These people are nothing but drug dealers masquerading as politically motivated Loyalists, and while the UVF and UDA are bad the LVF is even worse. Comparisons between them and Óglaigh na hÉireann are completely flawed.

Victor

What if the IRA is effectively fully decommissioned already?

cdebru

Victor wrote:

What if the IRA is effectively fully decommissioned already?

well then they better go out and get some more guns to destroy or nip down to smiths toystore and take picture of them selves destroying some kids toys

FTA69

I would imagine the IRA retains arms of some variety, otherwise the whole issue would be done and dusted.

Victor

FTA69 wrote:

I would imagine the IRA retains arms of some variety, otherwise the whole issue would be done and dusted.

But that would be an admission of "failure".

FTA69

The IRA have already engaged in decommisioning (3 times in fact) and as such have already crossed the ideological lexicon that goes with that issue, also, if they did have emptied their arsenal Sinn Féin would be shouting from the rooftops about the need for reciprication on the British and Unionist sides. Your position does not make sense.

Mad Cyril

I don't understand the need for photographic evidence of decommissioning.An independent commission was created for the sole purpose of overseeing decommissioning. There was a clear and specific reason that a commission was created to oversee the process as opposed to public acts of decommissioning and that reason is still as valid today as it was at the time the agreement was signed. All the parties agreed that this was the best way to approach the issue.

The only reason Paisley is is requesting material evidence is to stall the process. He is fully aware the provisional leadership is not in a position to make such a move and the DUP are content to sit around being ruled from Westminster for the forseeable future.

marco murphy

i find the idea of photos crap

spongebob

Mad Cyril wrote:

I don't understand the need for photographic evidence of decommissioning.An independent commission was created for the sole purpose of overseeing decommissioning.

Digital cameras are a lot cheaper nowadays ! Whats wrong with a kalashnikov and angle grinder photo or two ?

M

FTA69

Exactly Cyril, decommisioning should not be a necessity in the first place owing to the fact the Brits shoudl not be in this country making demands in the first place, aside from that though, a process was agreed and ratified.

spongebob

FTA69 wrote:

I would imagine the IRA retains arms of some variety

Personal Protecton weapons issued by the PSNI are not to be decommissoned , either the DUP ones or the Sinn Féin (IRA) ones.

M

marco murphy

Muck wrote:

Personal Protecton weapons issued by the PSNI are not to be decommissoned , either the DUP ones or the Sinn Féin (IRA) ones.

M

Elaborate