[article] Sinn Fein expell IRA-British Agent erm...

The Baler

The whole thing reeks of British dirty tricks. Three years ago we were told that Sinn Fein were directly responsible for the fall of stormont. Now we are to believe that all the evidence found (taken from the Brit spy's office and his Belfast home.....!!!) was indeed proof that Sinn Fein were involved in a Spy ring.

Jesus what a joke!! When the Brits get caught or fingered they then say 'we cannot talk or go into detail about our spys or informers: mind you there seems to be a different rule for Sinn Fein.

The Brits should wake up and declare that they are sincere in their efforts to bring peace to NI. Isn't it time that they stop spying on democratic political parties?

Some Fcuking Democracy!!!

Mighty_Mouse

SF was the political wing of the terrorist/criminal IRA. Labour, FF and FG have followed democratic politics when the IRA were planting bombs in trash cans.

FF ! :eek: Dev, Micky Collins etc etc

I am would not be suprised if the British Security forces had more ajents in SF.

Neither would I. Par for the course.

My problem is using them to bring down democratically elected institutions.I'm surprised the rest of the world hasn't gone banana's over this.

Mighty_Mouse

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

My problem is using them to bring down democratically elected institutions.I'm surprised the rest of the world hasn't gone banana's over this.

Theres nothing particularally democratic about d'hondt.
Democracy is well ...majority rule, D'hondt is well everybody rules or nobody.

As for Dev and Collins etc, that was nearly a 100 years ago.
Dont be comparing what went on a 100 years ago with today unless you want the society that was there a 100 years ago aswell and a priest running after you with a black thorn stick and think thats acceptable too.

The two times are miles apart.

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

Theres nothing particularally democratic about d'hondt.
Democracy is well ...majority rule, D'hondt is well everybody rules or nobody.

Are you saying that NI is not democratic?

Running Bing

What I cant understand is why our fearless crusader of justice minister mcdowell and our other noble ministers/party leaders are not outraged by this in the same way as the northern bank robbery or indeed when the original news of a spy ring broke. I think this just emphasises the hollowness of some of the outrage mcdowell shows for sf. Does he really care about justice and democracy at all? or is there some other reason hes so staunchly anti sf? Politics is a dirty game and sinn fein are not the only manipulative politicians around, not by a long shot. politicians are always playing some angle for their own good.:rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Are you saying that NI is not democratic?

The system of Government(The Stormont assembly) isnt, the elections to it are.

supersheep

Victor wrote:

Earthman wrote:

Now that is tinfoil hat stuff.
It's reasonable to speculate on double agents,they been known to exist but aliens well frankly no.

Then why do we have the ALIENS ACT, 1935? Ireland recognises the existance of aliens.

ROFFLEWAFFLES WITH MAPLE SYRUP. This deserves recognition...

Babybing makes a good point - assuming McDowell is a paragon of justice... Somehow, I doubt it.
According to "Martin Ingram" (Mr. FRU-Guy-Under-A-False-Name), there are other "senior household name Republicans" spying for Britain... I have my suspicions, although I won't voice them here (may be libel, I don't know).

What if it was ALL a British op? If everything from the 70's onwards, the whole turn to politics, everything, was because the British turned someone?

Mighty_Mouse

Dont be comparing what went on a 100 years ago with today unless you want the society that was there a 100 years ago aswell and a priest running after you with a black thorn stick and think thats acceptable too.

The two times are miles apart.

I'm always a little perplexed by this argument. It's not a particularly solid one imo.

For me the 2 societies were comparable. I.e. society in the republic around 1900 and society in the north 30-50 years ago. Same oppression, lack of access to political representation, civil rights etc etc

Theres nothing particularally democratic about d'hondt.

The elections were democratic.

As opposed to pointing out details in the argument, can you not clarify where you stand on the issue?

Does it hurt having less ammo to hammer SF with?

Is it now fair to accept that a whole lot of people have egg on their face over the collapse?

There was no basis for the collapse of the institutions.

Mighty_Mouse

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

I'm always a little perplexed by this argument. It's not a particularly solid one imo.

Little wonder,its a toughie isnt it

For me the 2 societies were comparable. I.e. society in the republic around 1900 and society in the north 30-50 years ago. Same oppression, lack of access to political representation, civil rights etc etcThe elections were democratic.

Thats stretching it.We were the same democratically as England .Furthermore theres no way the society in Ireland or western Europe was the same at the time of the Enniskillen bomb or warrington as it was in the 1920's.People were largely abhorred by that kind of sick violence then.
Standards due largely to the ease of news gathering, and TV had vastly improved as had society and its demands.
It's a rock solid view untill I see people going back to the standards of acceptability of the 1920's anyway and that ain't going to happen.

As opposed to pointing out details in the argument, can you not clarify where you stand on the issue?

Why? D'hondt is the very antithesis of democracy,it forces everyone to have a say and it doesnt work because really ,the people who its forcing together hate each other in this case-and despite the wooly statements of some politicians, dont try to tell em that they dont hate each other.

Does it hurt having less ammo to hammer SF with?

what do you mean?

Is it now fair to accept that a whole lot of people have egg on their face over the collapse?

There was no basis for the collapse of the institutions.

As it stood they wouldnt have continued to work and there seems no sign that they would if they were reinstated given that one side is at the North pole and the other side is at the South pole.One side wants sack cloth and ashes and the other wants on the runs excused without as much as an explanation(despite that being contradictory to their stance on truth from the state).

As to why they were collapsed,I simply dont know what was going on.
Who do I believe? Certainly not the security services of the UK as well... the basis of a secret service is to lie to keep it a secret or at a minimum say nothing.
Sinn Féin? spin spin spin
I dont listen to spin,its see through follow an agenda stuff.

Mighty_Mouse

Little wonder,its a toughie isnt it

attack the argument

standards of acceptability of the 1920's

complete bs imo. Standards of acceptability!!!!! Nothing has changed in 80 years if you ask me. In fact there's more voilence, war and acceptabilty of war genocie and voilence today that there was in the 1900's. e.g serb's, rwanda, darfur, iraq,

The point is imo there is always war. It's usually the same reasons repeated. "Standards of acceptability" doesnt come into it. If southern irish people returned to the same political environment of the 1900's today - there would be war.

Our standards of acceptabilty haven't changed cos people haven't evloved that much in 50 years.
So imo it's bs to say collin's dev etc were acceptable because of their "time" but the IRA up north weren't.

They either both are or aren't

It's a competely different issue here anyways

As it stood they wouldnt have continued to work

Do you or do you not think it's a disgrace?
Is republicans mistrust in the security forces not vindicated?
Is SF not vindicated of all responsibility in relation to the collapse?

there seems no sign that they would if they were reinstated given that one side is ............

doesn't matter. It will work. There is no alternative.
All it needs is for the institutions to get up and running. For politicians to get into the routine of running the north. For working relations between both parties to build to a point where arguments are held within the institutions without collapsing them.

What's needed is for the brits to resist collapsing the fecking thing.

What's needed is for the power of the security forces in the north to be handed back to the goverment of the north to run it.

<<For a completely new far and equal security force to be made imo>>

As to why they were collapsed,I simply dont know what was going on.

What do you not understand about the collapse? It was staged by british security forces. ie..... invented to make SF look responsible.

Who do I believe? Certainly not the security services of the UK as well... the basis of a secret service is to lie to keep it a secret or at a minimum say nothing.

I dont understand this sentance

supersheep

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Complete bs imo. Standards of acceptability!!!!! Nothing has changed in 80 years if you ask me. In fact there's more voilence, war and acceptabilty of war genocide and voilence today that there was in the 1900's. e.g serb's, rwanda, darfur, iraq,

The point is imo there is always war. It's usually the same reasons repeated. "Standards of acceptability" doesnt come into it. If southern irish people returned to the same political environment of the 1900's today - there would be war.

Our standards of acceptabilty haven't changed cos people haven't evloved that much in 50 years.
So imo it's bs to say collin's dev etc were acceptable because of their "time" but the IRA up north weren't.

Wrong. People care more about things like genocide and war now - how many people marched against the Iraq War versus how many people marched against WWI, for example. Just because there is always war doesn't mean that war is acceptable. If genocide was more acceptable, then why are people being put on trial for Rwanda and Yugoslavia when no-one was put on trial for the Congo? And the reason there was war in the early 1900s was because certain people forced the issue. Nowadays, we would go for the peaceful approach, and those who tried to hijack it militarily would be a much greater minority than the IRA of 1919 or even the IRA of 1969.
I'd say it's because of Vietnam that people began to change - seeing all that pain on TV must have doe something. And it doesn't mean that people always care, just that killing for a political cause is less acceptable these days, especially with regard to 'First World' countries.
EDIT: TYPOS GALORE!!!! YAYAYAY!

Mighty_Mouse

People care more about things like genocide

Rwanda! Sudan - Darfur!
http://www.darfurinfo.org/
http://www.savedarfur.org/
www.darfurgenocide.org
https://hrw.org/doc?t=africa&c=darfur

Yep people care allright!!

then why are people being put on trial for Rwanda and Yugoslavia

After millions/hundreds thousands were tortured and slaughtered. Kids forced to kill their own parents with machetes, women mutilated, people burned alive in churches.....................etc The world stood by twidling it thumbs.
Yep the world has moved to a new level in terms of whats acceptable allright.

Nowadays, we would go for the peaceful approach

Crap imo. When a peaceful route doesn't exist? Even Mandela accepted the need for voilence.

My point is here that you are either against voilence or accept the need for it in certain circumstances. In particular in relation to republican history on this island. You cannot consider the actions of republicans in the 1900's as acceptable whilst condeming the actions of republicans in the north for the last 30 years.

Same political environments, same reactions. <time-frame not important imo>

At the very least if you accept one you must develop and understanding for the motivations of the other imo.

again . were going miles off track here

<quote>I'd say it's because of Vietnam that people began to change </quote> not at all. Nothing has demonstrated this. Sure, Iraq is probably the biggest example of history repeating itself for the americans anyways

Peanut

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

...
What do you not understand about the collapse? It was staged by british security forces. ie..... invented to make SF look responsible.

In your opinion. No doubt British security were complicit, but it's not at all clear if it was entirely orchestrated by them.

Mighty_Mouse

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

attack the argumentcomplete bs imo.

What argument - you presented none...

Standards of acceptability!!!!! Nothing has changed in 80 years if you ask me.

I see so you are the judge and nothing has changed in 80 years :rolleyes: If you expect me to be fed that , all I can say is that is bullshít and nothing else

In fact there's more voilence, war and acceptabilty of war genocie and voilence today that there was in the 1900's. e.g serb's, rwanda, darfur, iraq,

not in Western Europe and certainly not in the E.U.You're giving examples of societies that are completely different to what we know and expect as the norm here in the west.

The point is imo there is always war. It's usually the same reasons repeated. "Standards of acceptability" doesnt come into it. If southern irish people returned to the same political environment of the 1900's today - there would be war.

I'm not surprised that you dismiss standards of acceptability, given the IRA never accepted them.

Our standards of acceptabilty haven't changed cos people haven't evloved that much in 50 years.
So imo it's bs to say collin's dev etc were acceptable because of their "time" but the IRA up north weren't.

Codswollop.
What would have happened if you wanted a gay civil union the 1920's? what would have happened if you "lived in sin"
Where did babies go if you had one out of wedlock?
What happened if a film came into the country with a bit of humpty dumpty in it?
To suggest that society and what it considers acceptabl;e today and in the 1920's are the same holds no water.
The bucket doesnt even get wet.

Do you or do you not think it's a disgrace?

I think it's sad that we didnt have an assembly there 20 years ago.
Tit for tat murdering and mahem were responsible for that.It was all a horrible Waste.

Is republicans mistrust in the security forces not vindicated?
Is SF not vindicated of all responsibility in relation to the collapse?

I've gone past listening to spin, so I simply dont know.It doesnt surprise me that the UK governments have moles.It doesnt mean I have to condone their use of them just as I wouldnt condone the murder mahem and tit for tat that went on for 30 years.

doesn't matter. It will work. There is no alternative.

Probably only when the nationalists out breed the unionists though.

All it needs is for the institutions to get up and running. For politicians to get into the routine of running the north. For working relations between both parties to build to a point where arguments are held within the institutions without collapsing them.

What you really mean is for Ian Paisley to pass away and Peter Robinson to take over.

What's needed is for the brits to resist collapsing the fecking thing.

Ach there would have been walk outs anyway.
The two governments are in a difficult position when faced with that scenario

What's needed is for the power of the security forces in the north to be handed back to the goverment of the north to run it.

You mean independently run with a watchdog with some of the strongest powers in the EU-oh we have that already.

<<For a completely new far and equal security force to be made imo>>

Dont you think, it would be better to listen to your million or so fellow citizens views on that? They've had to accept a complete 50:50 recruitment bias to try and reverse the severely skewed make up of the PSNI.
Dont you think that ignoring their views on sacking members just because they are protestants flies in the face of inclusivity???

What do you not understand about the collapse? It was staged by british security forces. ie..... invented to make SF look responsible. I dont understand this sentance

It's simple.I wont believe SF spin on it just as I wont accept UK government explanations.

Sparks

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

The world stood by twidling it thumbs.

Actually, it didn't - but it was prevented from acting by stalling on the part of the US in the UNSC. The UN was on the ground in Rwanda from before the start of the genocide, with the UN troops pleading for permission to stop it and being refused by the SC.

Mighty_Mouse

I see so you are the judge and nothing has changed in 80 years

All I can do if offer my opinion. Is that ok? Do I need you're explicit permission for every new point I want to make? oh ya nearly forgot --> :rolleyes:

all I can say is that is bullshít and nothing else

I know; that's become obvious

not in Western Europe and certainly not in the E.U.You're giving examples of societies that are completely different to what we know and expect as the norm here in the west.

War and voilence is part of human nature. You can never say were too civilised or educated etc imo. It will occur again and again in Western Europe or whereever the typical motivations arise. ie should a segment of people feel disenfranchised enough. e.g france

again this is a fierce sidetrack. maybe you should open another thread?

I'm not surprised that you dismiss standards of acceptability, given the IRA never accepted them

maybe you should publish your "Standards of Acceptabilty"? Then the IRA would of know not to wage their war?

What would have happened if you wanted a gay civil union the 1920's? what would have happened if you "lived in sin"
Where did babies go if you had one out of wedlock?
What happened if a film came into the country with a bit of humpty dumpty in it?

How does that relate to the comparability in the reaction of irish people to British rule in the 1900's and British rule in north (take the period 60's +?)?

I think it's sad that we didnt have an assembly there 20 years ago.
Tit for tat murdering and mahem were responsible for that.It was all a horrible Waste.

yes ......... no taming the native's old boy. Im my day .............:rolleyes:

What are you even talking about !!!!! I'm talking about the StormontGATE affair. I'm taling about functioning institutions that were successfully in place being brought down by British security forces and the same police force you castigate republicans for not joining .

We can moan about the past but there is and was a new begining up north.

It doesnt mean I have to condone their use of them just as I wouldnt condone the murder mahem and tit for tat that went on for 30 years.

Ok fair enough. It was awful. Now can we not get on with gettin the GFA working?

Probably only when the nationalists out breed the unionists though.

Won't take that long. "on the runs", policing, solved, institutions working within the next 3 years = peace .

Unionists have the right to lobby for participation the the kingdom. Nationalists have the right to do the opposite.

What you really mean is for Ian Paisley to pass away and Peter Robinson to take over.

Not really. There all as bitter and twisted as each other. what I really mean is common sense to take over.

In the absense of that I mean getting the insitutions working as previously and avoiding have security forces underming the process.

Dont you think that ignoring their views on sacking members just because they are protestants flies in the face of inclusivity???

one word = "patten"

No I mean a new beginning we voted for. I mean sack the whole fecking lot of them and rehire them if suitable on a 50 - 50 basis

Whats the problem . Sin é a new beginning imo.

as opposed to accepting people complicit in murders and people who actively work to drag down the process on board.

Actually, it didn't - but it was prevented from acting by stalling on the part of the US in the UNSC. The UN was on the ground in Rwanda from before the start of the genocide, with the UN troops pleading for permission to stop it and being refused by the SC.

= world done nothing IMO

Sparks

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

= world done nothing IMO

= world prevented from doing something by the vested interests who immediately turn round and castigate others for doing nothing. IMHO, of course...

supersheep

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Rwanda! Sudan - Darfur!
Yep people care all right!!
After millions/hundreds thousands were tortured and slaughtered. Kids forced to kill their own parents with machetes, women mutilated, people burned alive in churches, etc. The world stood by twiddling its thumbs. Yep the world has moved to a new level in terms of whats acceptable all right.

Armenian genocide! Belgian Congo! Stalin's ethnic cleansing of Kalmykhs, Crimean Tartars, Volga German, etc! Unlike Rwanda and Darfur, these things aroused almost no interest in the outside world. At least people NOTICE now.

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Crap imo. When a peaceful route doesn't exist? Even Mandela accepted the need for violence.

My point is here that you are either against voilence or accept the need for it in certain circumstances. In particular in relation to republican history on this island. You cannot consider the actions of republicans in the 1900's as acceptable whilst condeming the actions of republicans in the north for the last 30 years.

Same political environments, same reactions. <time-frame not important imo>

At the very least if you accept one you must develop an understanding for the motivations of the other imo.

"Same political environments, same reactions. <time-frame not important imo>" What do you mean by the same political environment, exactly? Do you mean that if things were EXACTLY the same, the response would be the same? Well, duh, but that's a given. And if that were the case, it wouldn't be today, it'd be 1900 in the year 2005.
However, if Ireland was still part of the UK today, and all the warfare of the past 90 years hadn't happened, then yes, I still believe the rising against the UK would be peaceful. After all, the civil rights movement was peaceful. Both here and in the US. Peaceful action will always get you further.

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

not at all. Nothing has demonstrated this. Sure, Iraq is probably the biggest example of history repeating itself for the americans anyways

More people care about things like this now than they did in the 50's. And people care more strongly as a whole. Or maybe just that it's more vocal and apparent - doesn't really matter, it still provides the same conclusion, that there is more interest in these things.

Back on topic. Hugh Orde claims that Stormontgate wasn't a set-up because it wasn't sophisticated - they could have planted the documents somewhere more incriminating. Like where? Gerry Adams' house? Wo would believe that, apart from die-hard anti-SF people. Like him or not, Gerry Adams is not going to be hiding secret documents under his bed, but hes going to give them to someone else if he has them.
The more I read, the more I think that this trial was dropped to prevent someone higher up being uncovered as an agent, and/or to prevent this being exposed as a sham. Why else would they have dropped the charges? I can't think of a legitimate reason.

Mighty_Mouse

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

All I can do if offer my opinion. Is that ok? Do I need you're explicit permission for every new point I want to make?

Well if you want to get technical, its against the charter here to post opinion as fact.It's either one or the other and to be frank saying that society hasnt changed vastly for the better in 80 years is silly.

I know; that's become obvious War and voilence is part of human nature. You can never say were too civilised or educated etc imo. It will occur again and again in Western Europe or whereever the typical motivations arise. ie should a segment of people feel disenfranchised enough. e.g france

Peacetime in Western Europe has lasted over 60 years

again this is a fierce sidetrack. maybe you should open another thread? maybe you should publish your "Standards of Acceptabilty"? Then the IRA would of know not to wage their war?
How does that relate to the comparability in the reaction of irish people to British rule in the 1900's and British rule in north (take the period 60's +?)?
yes ......... no taming the native's old boy. Im my day .............:rolleyes:

With respect you are ranting now.
The IRA never had the Irish peoples permission for what they did.

What are you even talking about !!!!! I'm talking about the StormontGATE affair. I'm taling about functioning institutions that were successfully in place being brought down by British security forces and the same police force you castigate republicans for not joining .

I spoke of inclusion-theres a million unionists that need to be included too.
What you got was a compromise

We can moan about the past but there is and was a new begining up north.

Ok fair enough. It was awful. Now can we not get on with gettin the GFA working?

Won't take that long. "on the runs", policing, solved, institutions working within the next 3 years = peace .

You seriously think that you can tame this shrew in just 3 years?
Good luck with that

Unionists have the right to lobby for participation the the kingdom. Nationalists have the right to do the opposite.
Not really. There all as bitter and twisted as each other. what I really mean is common sense to take over.

In the absense of that I mean getting the insitutions working as previously and avoiding have security forces underming the process.

Theres a lot going on that none of us are privy to, tbh on both sides of the fence.
Some of these people may be out on an agenda of their own.

one word = "patten"

yeah he wants SF to join the policing board as things stand.
I've no doubt that they wil eventually It's all grand standing and brinkmanship-usual stuff really, they should get on with it.

No I mean a new beginning we voted for. I mean sack the whole fecking lot of them and rehire them if suitable on a 50 - 50 basis

You know that wont be happening.
But i wouldnt be surprised if some other concession is pulled out of the hat in some other area.

FTA69

meldrew wrote:

Agreed you have a democratic mandate but you also have a private army backing you which no other party has , also as a party the self same private army is raising funds by all sorts of means , and dont go on about being able to prove it . All a person has to do is look around at election time and see the amount of money SF pours into their campaign ,are you seriously saying all of that money can be accounted for?

Private army? You mean the IRA which has verifiably put all arms beyond use and declared an absolute end to its campaign? As for elections, we actually spent less money on our campaign in the 6 Counties than the SDLP, we have a strong activist tradition and thousands of workers who canvass etc on a volunteer (excuse the pun! ) basis. Also, much of the work we do (IT, building etc) is done in-house by members or supporters, something other parties are unable to do. Our accounts are published on our website, and have passed all audits.