McDowell names Adams and McGuinness as members of IRA Army Council.

Keano_sli

IRA, REAL IRA , Continutiy IRA, INLA its all part of the same Violent Republican stain on the face of Ireland.
Yet none of the apologists can explain their affinity for this strange insanity.
I was not offering the site as a definitive source of anything other than that people should look at the photos and see what these people do. Most of the apologists have never seen a body which has been blown to pieces or charred after a bomb.
It makes my blood boil that these are the same hipocrites who are against the war in Iraq. They like to pick and choose who deserves to die on politically grounds and then demand to have their mandate repected.
Please spare me!

Meh

irish1 wrote:

It's about proof and due process, you see if the Gardai had the balls to arrest adams and co and bring them to court then we would be able to say for sure, but at the moment we just have McDowell shouting his mouth, and a Taoiseach who doesn't know!

There is a legal remedy available to people who have been the subject of malicious false allegations, Adams doesn't seem to "have the balls" to pursue it though. I wonder why not? I haven't seen any reasonable explanation so far, just legal fairy tales from people who obviously don't have any legal knowledge, and who seem to be contradicting Adams/McGuinness as well as each other.

Stabshauptmann

Meh wrote:

What's your point? Since the article was more than just an "accurate and neutral" reporting of parliamentary or court proceedings, it wasn't privileged.

AHHH, please listen to what Im saying. The newspaper isnt privilaged, court and parliment are, and anyone can quote a privilaged comment without comiting defamation.

I think it's you who needs to read the entire article. The Independent asserts the accusations as fact, it doesn't simply report McDowell's accusations.

For christs sake READ THE ARTICLE!
It might very well be fact, but the paper doesnt say it is. "We choose to believe Mr McDowell" is there EXACT words, we CHOOSE to BELIEVE, its not presented as fact.

In any case, McDowell's original comments weren't privileged, because he wasn't addressing the Dáil.

Read my posts, there are two types of privilage, absolute and qualified. McDowell always has qualified privilage when talking about matters of Juctice.

That aside I listened to that interview, he said it has been reported before,
McDowell didnt make a new aqusation. Once something is in the public domain it isnt defamation. It came to the public domain years ago first through privilage. It was origionally Paisley who used privilage in westminister.
Since then its been in books, newspapers, radio etc

Theres two reasons why McDowells coments arent defamation, a third MIGHT be that they are true but a Judge wont care even if they're not.


Thats why I said to read the article, it says quite clearly its NOT a NEW aqusation.

And furthermore, Adams and McGuinness themselves seem to disagree with you -- they haven't used the "privilege" excuse for not suing.

What excuse have they used?
They've demanded McDowell and co prove the acqusation is true; if McDowell tries and fails he has comited defamation and Adams and mcGuinness are entitled to damages.

Edit -- I see Daily Ireland are suing McDowell for saying they were "backed by the IRA". Care to explain how they can sue but Gerry can't? Shouldn't your concept of "qualified privilege" apply to this statement as well?

MY concept. Hats off you're the best troll Ive heard in ages, you got me, but Im reporting it.
You're clearly trying to wind me up. I didnt invent the law or any sections of it. You understand and forget my posts at will. You say you've read an article and even quote it even though it says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE to what you claim it does.

The Daily Ireland aqusation is a NEW aqusation and thus can be contested.

SkepticOne

irish1 wrote:

It's about proof and due process, you see if the Gardai had the balls to arrest adams and co and bring them to court then we would be able to say for sure, but at the moment we just have McDowell shouting his mouth, and a Taoiseach who doesn't know!

It is really just about politics. In order for Mr Adams to get out of this in the eyes of the Irish public he has to sue. Unfortunately for Adams, the ball is firmly in his court politically. I don't think it is fully realised how serious this is for Sinn Fein's political ambitions in the South.

As far as I can see it is check mate for Adams. McDowell doesn't need to have sufficient evidence to convict Adams and McGuinness in a criminal court, all he needs to do is say that he believes Adams and McGuinness to be members of the Army Council. For his purposes as a senior member of the PDs, the main thing is that Sinn Fein will not for the forseable future be part of any Irish Government and no politician will negotiate with them. I think he has succeeded in this.

Adams now needs to decide who his peers are. If he doesn't sue, that is the end of Sinn Fein as anything but a fringe party in the South (although he will still have support in the North). If he does sue, this will mean that he will lose hard line support in the North. It is one thing to go on the radio and issue denials, it is another to go to court to clear your name of associations with terrorists claiming that your name has been sullied by such associations.

I don't particularly like McDowell or his party but I have to admire this piece of work. He has used it before and I expect him to use it again. It is likely that other politicians will join in too.

Stabshauptmann

Keano_sli wrote:

IRA, REAL IRA , Continutiy IRA, INLA its all part of the same Violent Republican stain on the face of Ireland.
Yet none of the apologists can explain their affinity for this strange insanity.
I was not offering the site as a definitive source of anything other than that people should look at the photos and see what these people do. Most of the apologists have never seen a body which has been blown to pieces or charred after a bomb.
It makes my blood boil that these are the same hipocrites who are against the war in Iraq. They like to pick and choose who deserves to die on politically grounds and then demand to have their mandate repected.
Please spare me!

A few points re: troubles and iraq
Justification
Conduct and context
Consistancy

Re IRA appologists:
Im just as willing to expose the inconsistancy of irish1 as I am true's.
Im not saying the IRA is this or that or Adams is this or that (though im on the record as saying what a dispicable character adams is IMO) Im stating as fact Irish libel law which is being manipulated and ignored on this board.

Villain

Right let me be as clear as I can, Adams has taken legal advice and that advice has told him not to pursue libel cases as he may not not win and would end up paying the costs. Now SkepticOne or Meh if your lawyers and have other legal advice to the contary please do share.

As for McDowell, well I think he'll be a little quiter for a while as rumours are Bertie is not happy with him shouting his mouth off.

monument

Sleepy wrote:

Apologies, that was a typo, I meant minority. Personally I believe a two pronged approach between the Irish and British armies that could cleanse this island of the RA (and the unionist head the balls) would be a great thing.

What are you talking about, rounding then up and arresting who you think is in the IRA, or shooting them?

I must say internment really worked last time…
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=227746

If you’re crazy enough to be talking about mass murder, you’d first have to handle the republican thinking people within the Irish army.

Sleepy wrote:

I realise, however, that this will never happen as most of the right-thinking people of this country don't have the stomach to stoop to the IRA's level.

From that, I'll take it that you are not a 'right-thinking' person.



At the end of the day, doesn’t suing under libel laws only usually only prove if a person was libelled or not?

Necromancer

Necromancer wrote:

It was origionally Paisley who used privilage in westminister.
Since then its been in books, newspapers, radio etc

I mentioned before that Paisley said that it was in the Sunday Times prior to he saying it in westminister-they printed the allegation a full three days before paisley went on about it in westminister-so it wasnt first mentioned under privilege.
How does that affect your theory?

Meh

Necromancer wrote:

AHHH, please listen to what Im saying. The newspaper isnt privilaged, court and parliment are, and anyone can quote a privilaged comment without comiting defamation.

It wasn't a quote. Do you understand what a quote is? "Michael McDowell says 'Gerry Adams interferes with sheep'" is a quote. "Michael McDowell says 'Gerry Adams interferes with sheep' and I agree with him, he's absolutely right, Gerry Adams does interfere with sheep, and goats beside" is not a quote.

For christs sake READ THE ARTICLE!
It might very well be fact, but the paper doesnt say it is. "We choose to believe Mr McDowell" is there EXACT words, we CHOOSE to BELIEVE, its not presented as fact.

Yes it is: "they lead a terrorist organisation". Are we talking about the same article?

Read my posts, there are two types of privilage, absolute and qualified. McDowell always has qualified privilage when talking about matters of Juctice.

So how come the Daily Ireland newspaper can sue him?

That aside I listened to that interview, he said it has been reported before,
McDowell didnt make a new aqusation. Once something is in the public domain it isnt defamation. It came to the public domain years ago first through privilage. It was origionally Paisley who used privilage in westminister.
Since then its been in books, newspapers, radio etc

The Daily Ireland aqusation is a NEW aqusation and thus can be contested.

Now you're just inventing libel law. Have you any link, anything at all to back up this crazy idea of yours? Only "accurate and neutral" reporting of privileged utterances is entitled to privilege.

irish1 wrote:

Right let me be as clear as I can, Adams has taken legal advice and that advice has told him not to pursue libel cases as he may not not win and would end up paying the costs. Now SkepticOne or Meh if your lawyers and have other legal advice to the contary please do share.

I have no legal advice to the contrary of that, in fact I'm absolutely sure that if Adams pursued the case, he would lose and end up paying the costs.

Villain

Meh wrote:

I have no legal advice to the contrary of that, in fact I'm absolutely sure that if Adams pursued the case, he would lose and end up paying the costs.

Exactly so why would he bring a case, now remember just because you lose a libel case doesn't mean what was said or wrote is true, I can't say that any clearer.

Earthman, I think I have stated why Adams and co haven't sued above?

Sleepy

irish1 wrote:

As they say if thats the law, the laws an ass.

It's about proof and due process, you see if the Gardai had the balls to arrest adams and co and bring them to court then we would be able to say for sure, but at the moment we just have McDowell shouting his mouth, and a Taoiseach who doesn't know!

I'm quite sure that many of the Gardai (and indeed Mr McDowell himself) have both the balls and desire to arrest, detain, prosecute and incarcerate Messrs Adams, Ferris et al.

However, I don't think the Irish people in general are prepared to risk lighting that potential stick of dynamite. Nearly everything I've read on the IRA would suggest that these individuals are a calming influence on the organisation and that to detain them would lead to some of the more radical members taking power and move from kneecapping marijhana dealers to violence on a par with the seventies.

I'm stating the obvious here. In fact I think it's so obvious, that every time I hear a SF member or supporter roll out the tired line "if you can prove it, arrest us", I hear the implied 'if you dare'.

Meh

irish1 wrote:

Exactly so why would he bring a case, now remember just because you lose a libel case doesn't mean what was said or wrote is true, I can't say that any clearer.

So we're agreed then, Adams won't sue because he knows he'd lose?

Sleepy

monument wrote:

What are you talking about, rounding then up and arresting who you think is in the IRA, or shooting them?

I must say internment really worked last time…
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=227746

If you’re crazy enough to be talking about mass murder, you’d first have to handle the republican thinking people within the Irish army.

Why does wanting to rid the island of the cancer that is the IRA make me crazy if I consider mass murder, yet the mass murder carried out by your organisation is considered glorious?

From that, I'll take it that you are not a 'right-thinking' person.

You know damn well that when I say "right-thinking", I mean anyone not deluded enough to support Sinn Fein / IRA. However, if I'm not 'right-thinking' in your opinion for wanting to fight fire with fire instead of bending over at the Provos slightest whim, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Villain

Meh wrote:

So we're agreed then, Adams won't sue because he knows he'd lose?

Yes Meh I've been saying that here all along, but you have to understand that doesn't mean what is printed is true, it's just not a breach of the libel laws.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Earthman, I think I have stated why Adams and co haven't sued above?

I always seem to be saying this, and I 'm saying it again, thats something that doesnt look good when they are defacto accepting that their peers think its good that they run the IRA.
A *peer* is someone whose views you respect.

At any rate I was just pointing out to necromancer that his major ground for Adams + co not sue-ing, ie that this was first mentioned under privilege by Paisley is incorrect.

SkepticOne

irish1 wrote:

Right let me be as clear as I can, Adams has taken legal advice and that advice has told him not to pursue libel cases as he may not not win and would end up paying the costs. Now SkepticOne or Meh if your lawyers and have other legal advice to the contary please do share.

What Adams' lawyers have advised him has to be seen in conjunction with Adams' political agenda. It may be possible to win the case but only if Adams claims that his name has been sullied by association with terrorists and this could have implications for example in the area of funding. We do not know what Adams told his lawyers before getting the advice. He could have told them that it was unacceptable for him to claim that his name had been sullied by such an association and therefore any advice must take this into consideration. Also, since according to cdebru, "it is not slander even if it is untrue unless your reputation has been diminished amongst your peers". Therefore, before getting advice from his lawyers he would have had to have told them who he considered his peers to be. Just saying that Adams has been advised not to persue a case means nothing.

This is why I said it is all politics really. Mr Adams advice from the lawyers is politics too since it depends on what he tells them and that is politics. Lawyers will say what you pay them to say. It is just a matter of presenting the problem to them in a particular way.

As for McDowell, well I think he'll be a little quiter for a while as rumours are Bertie is not happy with him shouting his mouth off.

McDowell's agenda is not quite the same as Bertie's. True, he needs to stay on the good side of Bertie where but he also needs to look down the line and eliminate potential partners in coalition. Bertie also needs to stay on the good side of McDowell too to a certain extent.

SpabSFW

Labour's commentary:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story/did-sgnQ-0pKKn36ksgdL11Zs5FWAE.asp

"Justice Minister Michael McDowell yesterday accused the three men of being members of the IRA Army Council.

Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern supported this view and said that based on garda intelligence, the Government is “absolutely satisfied” that the leadership of Sinn Féin and the IRA are interlinked.

Mr Ahern said it was now “inconceivable” for anyone to believe that there was no provisional IRA involvement in the robbery of £26.5 million (€38.5m) from the Northern Bank.

Labour is demanding that Mr McDowell make a statement in the Dáil detailing the evidence he has linking the Sinn Féin leadership to the IRA Army Council.

“If these claims are true, these men are guilty of membership of a subversive organisation which is punishable by a five-year jail term,” said Labour spokesman Joe Costello.

“The minister’s statement has huge repercussions and people will want to know will these people be prosecuted.

“A word of a garda superintendent who tells a court he believes someone is a member of proscribed organisation is now sufficient to convict that person.

“Here we have a minister, one of the highest office holders in the land, stating categorically that these three men are members of the IRA Army Council - one of them a member of the Dáil,” Mr Costello added.

Mr McDowell did not respond to Labour’s call that he clarify his allegations.

But Taoiseach Bertie Ahern moved to distance himself from Mr McDowell’s comments yesterday and said he did not know who was on the army council.

Meanwhile, Mr McGuinness said the Justice Minister’s remarks were politically motivated and an attempt to criminalise Sinn Féin..."

**********************
That poster who indicated he'd like to see a bloodfest may get his wish:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1108853409298&call_pageid=970599119419

"...Suffering in the fallout is the deadlocked Northern Ireland peace process, which analysts now fear may lie dormant indefinitely.

"This is a serious crisis," says Belfast political scientist Paul Bew. "It may be that we're moving into an entirely unpredictable and nasty period."

More than 3,600 people died in the conflict before the separatist IRA declared a ceasefire in the mid-1990s.

The 1998 "Good Friday" agreement for Catholic and Protestant power-sharing in the British territory has virtually collapsed, and talks to revive it broke down in December..."

**********************

There's an idea; knock out the part of the republican movement that has any interest whatsoever in the peace process. It's a good thing Ahern is less short-sighted than many of you.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/02/20/story2475.asp

"There are times when Bertie Ahern is impressive. Yes, he mangles language and meaning, he is deliberately obtuse on issues concerning money and Fianna Fáil, and he fails to articulate a ‘national purpose' (a shuddering 1960s term which is perhaps best left aside).

But amid media and political clamour, sometimes he gets it dead right, such as last Friday following the discovery of a significant number of bank notes in Cork and Dublin.

He pointed out that 15 years ago we were talking about murder and mayhem. Now we are talking about a bank robbery, however spectacular. He said that the point of the peace process was to end murder and violence and, after that, the ancillary criminality. People aren't being killed any more - at least not on the scale of 15 years ago - and that is a huge gain.

...

Abandoning ship amounts to the same thing as abandoning the peace process. The point of the peace process was to bring a united republican movement into exclusively democratically peaceful politics.

Adams and McGuinness abandoning ship now means abandoning that objective.

We are then left with the prospect of attempting to construct arrangements, vulnerable to the destruction of a still-powerful IRA, still supported by a sizeable section - albeit a minority - of the nationalist community in the North. It would not work.

The best outcome is that Adams and McGuinness remain involved and that they attempt to retrieve the situation..."


**********************

Now I could understand those of you in the south who are completely apathetic to the situation in the north (and even that is kind of sickening... predictable, but sickening), but it's considerably harder for me to understand catholics in the south who seem to have some strange hatred towards catholics in the north and regularly call for their civil rights to be violated, if not for a genocide of republicans. What's wrong with you people?

Keano_sli

Necromancer wrote:

A few points re: troubles and iraq
Justification
Conduct and context
Consistancy

Re IRA appologists:
Im just as willing to expose the inconsistancy of irish1 as I am true's.
Im not saying the IRA is this or that or Adams is this or that (though im on the record as saying what a dispicable character adams is IMO) Im stating as fact Irish libel law which is being manipulated and ignored on this board.

Sorry Necro, I'm not saying you are an IRA apologist, I know your just speaking from a Legal point of view on this particualr point of suing. I am just at the end of my wits with the whole Sinn fein merry dance. Exasperation is all I have left as my tolerance for lisenting to the same lines over and over again from sinn fein has just worn out.

Sleepy

SpabSFW wrote:

That poster who indicated he'd like to see a bloodfest may get his wish:

I take it this is directed at me. I want peace in the north. Maybe then my own country could lose it's international reputation as being tolerant of terrorists (tbh, I'm amazed Bush didn't include us in his "axis of evil" for harbouring terrorists).

I feel that if every member of the IRA, UDF, INLA etc. were taken out of the equation, peace would come about pretty quickly in the north. It's the tiny minority of the population that are involved in these organisations that wreck the place for the vast majority who just want to be let live their lives without the threat of butchers hanging over them.

I'm not saying that I'd necessarily like to see a bloodbath, or even the situation get to the point where it was necessary. I would however, like it to be made clear to republicans and unionists alike that any resumption of violence would lead to a shoot to kill warrant being placed upon their heads by the Irish army. Sinn Fein/ IRA do not have the right to threaten or imply threats of violence every time they don't get their own way. I'd like them to be told that any violence they act out will be paid back at tehm by a legitimate army (who I daresay are far better trained and equiped than their hoodlums).

There's an idea; knock out the part of the republican movement that has any interest whatsoever in the peace process. It's a good thing Ahern is less short-sighted than many of you.

Did I not just post that I feel arresting Adams et al would be a mistake?

Now I could understand those of you in the south who are completely apathetic to the situation in the north (and even that is kind of sickening... predictable, but sickening), but it's considerably harder for me to understand catholics in the south who seem to have some strange hatred towards catholics in the north and regularly call for their civil rights to be violated, if not for a genocide of republicans. What's wrong with you people?

Hatred of Sinn Fein and the IRA != Hatred of Catholics in Northern Ireland

As much as I despise their religeon it's no worse than any other, but that's another thread, and probably better suited to humanities. Why is it sickening that we in the south would become apathetic to another country's hard-liners refusal to grow up and stop killing each other? Personally I'd be more sickened by the acts of mass genocide that take place in Africa than what happens in the north...

[EDIT]I had arbitrarily picked a figure of 2% to account for the tiny minority I refered to in the north, ammended before I'm asked to provide figures for this[/EDIT}

dahamsta

Everyone seems to be concentrating on Adams et al's right to sue, but I'm confused about something else: Isn't membership of the IRA against the law, i.e. a criminal matter? And if so, if McDowell knows that Adams, McGuinness and Ferris are on the Army Council, wouldn't not acting on that be Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice? And because McDowell is the Justice Minister, wouldn't he actually be committing Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Himself?

So really it's McDowell that should be arrested, for being a self-abusing knob-end!

adam

monument

Sleepy wrote:

Why does wanting to rid the island of the cancer that is the IRA make me crazy if I consider mass murder, yet the mass murder carried out by your organisation is considered glorious?

What do you mean by "your organisation"? Unlike you, I've never advocated mass murder, and btw I don’t support the IRA’s means of fighting their war.

If your plan was to succeed you’d not only have to kill whom you suspect of being in the IRA, but their all their family and friends, and a load of “right-thinking people” who would not stand for your mass murder.

Sleepy wrote:

You know damn well that when I say "right-thinking", I mean anyone not deluded enough to support Sinn Fein / IRA. However, if I'm not 'right-thinking' in your opinion for wanting to fight fire with fire instead of bending over at the Provos slightest whim, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

I wasn’t talking from my opinion, you said that "most of the right-thinking people of this country don't have the stomach to stoop to the IRA's level", seeing that you want to use the Irish and British armies to commit mass murder (ie what you see as to “stoop to the IRA's level”), I can only take it that you're not "most of the right-thinking people".

mike65

dahamsta wrote:

So really it's McDowell that should be arrested, for being a self-abusing knob-end!

adam

Lets remember who the real enemy is eh?

Mike.

dahamsta

mike65 wrote:

Lets remember who the real enemy is eh?

It isn't McDowell? I'd consider him an enemy of the people. Ah, you mean Bertie, don't you?!

SkepticOne

Say what you like. At least McDowell cares about capitalism and is not a socialist and a terrorist.

cdebru

SkepticOne wrote:

Say what you like. At least McDowell cares about capitalism and is not a socialist and a terrorist.

yeah we need more people caring about capitalism it is so feeble it could break at any moment
less caring about people more caring about capitalism

SkepticOne

Try saying something nice about a politician and you get shot down. This forum is far too cynical.

cdebru

if you think " cares about capitalism" is a nice thing to say about anyone i can't wait till you start insulting people

Sleepy

cdebru, find out what capitalism is before you try to attack it. If you care to read up on it and still want to attack it, start a thread in Humanities and I'll show you the error of your ways. However, getting back on topic:

monument: as long as you continue to defend Sinn Fein / IRA you will be thought of as being indoctrinated into that organisation. I'm not saying that I'd necessarily like to see the Irish army set upon the RA heads, I'd like to see the government have the balls to show an apropriate reaction to Sinn Fein's constant threats of violence. I think someone should point out to Sinn Fein that they aren't the only ones sitting at the negotiation table that have an army.

cdebru

Sleepy wrote:

cdebru, find out what capitalism is before you try to attack it. If you care to read up on it and still want to attack it, start a thread in Humanities and I'll show you the error of your ways. However, getting back on topic:

i know what capitalism is
perhaps you would look condescending remarks and we could discuss that

Sleepy wrote:

monument: as long as you continue to defend Sinn Fein / IRA you will be thought of as being indoctrinated into that organisation. I'm not saying that I'd necessarily like to see the Irish army set upon the RA heads, I'd like to see the government have the balls to show an apropriate reaction to Sinn Fein's constant threats of violence. I think someone should point out to Sinn Fein that they aren't the only ones sitting at the negotiation table that have an army.

when has sinn fein threatened to use violence during the peace process

and who the hell is the UDF and when was the last time the INLA killed anyone who was not a member of the INLA( i actually know the answer to this question) I think you should actually read up on the conflict in the north of this island before you come on here spouting your nonsense about the Irish Rangers
its time you were shown the error of your ways


I just googled UDF and apparently sleepy wants to attack a political party in bulgaria
I think you taking the money laundering thing a bit too serious

monument

Sleepy wrote:

monument: as long as you continue to defend Sinn Fein / IRA you will be thought of as being indoctrinated into that organisation.

I’ve defended the IRA? Wait a second, is this coming from somebody who was trying to defend mass murder?

Even if you were just talking about SF, I’m hardly “indoctrinated into that organisation”. I don’t believe in an united Ireland by any means, I don’t think SF should be talking about a united Ireland while there is such a democratic void in the north, I don’t even think a united Ireland should be such a big deal as long as everyone is being treated fairly.

Sleepy wrote:

I'm not saying that I'd necessarily like to see the Irish army set upon the RA heads,

No, not just the ‘RA heads’, but I think you were calling for mass murder...

Sleepy wrote:

Personally I'd love to see it done and the Army let show the RA what a real war looks like but I know I'm very much in the majority of favouring a short brutal war over the procrastination and petty name calling of northern politics.

...And you’ve being defending your comments up till your last post...

Just to be clearer, here is where you questioned your craziness for considering mass murder…

Sleepy wrote:

Why does wanting to rid the island of the cancer that is the IRA make me crazy if I consider mass murder, yet the mass murder carried out by your organisation is considered glorious?

Oh and again my "organisation"? What the hell are you talking about?

Sleepy wrote:

I'd like to see the government have the balls to show an apropriate reaction to Sinn Fein's constant threats of violence. I think someone should point out to Sinn Fein that they aren't the only ones sitting at the negotiation table that have an army.

Sinn Fein's constant threats of violence - you've lost me there.

You have gone from advocating mass murder of suspected IRA people, to just advocating the threat of such violence on SF, what a step down!