3 "expelled" from IRA

cdebru

Rock Climber wrote:

No I'm saying its showing them up, that they will do a minimum face saving exercise in this case because its their own thats involved yet when its anyone else... total hypocrites.
By the way you seem to either know it all(for someone that claims not to be an IRA or Sinn Féin supporter) or are making a lot of assumptions.
Like how do you know but that 3 of the seven Sinn Féin expelled were also the 3 expelled from the IRA?
That would only make up only half the 12, the family say were involved and not ten.
As I say why dont the IRA frog march the whole 12 down to the ombudsmans office??
I'll tell you why again, because they are their own and hypocrites.

The family looked totally uncomfortable and ashen faced at that Ard Fheis,I'll bet it took an awfull lot of pressure to get them there given that only last night they were on Newsnight giving out about the intimidation.

I know it is 7 different people because martin mcguiness said it on the 1 o'clock news today on rte radio 1

so that is 10 people


if the IRA marched them anywhere or intimidated them anything they say would be useless as it would be made under duress

Rock Climber

cdebru wrote:

if the IRA marched them anywhere or intimidated them anything they say would be useless as it would be made under duress

But couldn't they intimidate them enough, so as they wouldnt claim duress, they're well capable

Oh and by the way how does McGuinness know who all 3 IRA members that were expelled were as only one of them apparently went to the police, did he expell them himself

cdebru

Rock Climber wrote:

But couldn't they intimidate them enough, so as they wouldnt claim duress, they're well capable

Oh and by the way how does McGuinness know who all 3 IRA members that were expelled were as only one of them apparently went to the police, did he expell them himself

that would be a question for mcguiness i dont know the answer they did not ask him on the news
but as mcdowell would say he knows what he knows

Cork

irish1 wrote:

Yes mycroft and I hope people who have information will give evidence in court, I was simply putting Cork straight.

A list of names of seven Sinn Féin members suspended does not constitute evidence.

Alasdair McDonnell has posed a number of interesting & relevant questions:

Alasdair McDonnell
28th February 2005
MCDONNELL POSES QUESTIONS TO MASKEY ON MURDER

SDLP Deputy Leader Dr Alasdair McDonnell said Sinn Fein has questions to answer on the murder of Robert McCartney and the cover-up led by Alec Maskey.



Dr McDonnell said: “Robert McCartney was brutally murdered because he refused to bend the knee to local Provo bosses. That was his only ‘crime’ and for it he was brutally slaughtered. As bad as the killing itself has been the intimidation by the IRA and the cover-up by Sinn Fein led by Alex Maskey.



“If it had not been for the extraordinary determination of the McCartney’s to secure justice and their courage in speaking out, Sinn Fein would have got away with the cover-up, just as they succeeded in covering up so many murders by the IRA in recent years.



“despite fine words by Sinn Fein and IRA, despite their public claims to support the family, the cover-up and lying is still going on. Sinn Fein needs to come clean and answer a few simple questions.



· If Alec Maskey truly backs the McCartney campaign for justice, why did he attack me when I told the truth that IRA members were responsible for the murder?

· Why did Alex Maskey try to dismiss this murder as ‘knife culture’ as if this was some ordinary bar fight?

· Why did Alex Maskey rush to condemn police searches of suspects’ houses?

· Why were riots orchestrated to disrupt police work?

· Why did IRA and Sinn Fein people on the ground tell people not to go to the police?

· And above all why did Gerry Adams wait for over two weeks until after the family had spoken out before he said a thing about the murder?



“I am challenging Alec Maskey to answer every one of those questions.”

Why did IRA and Sinn Fein people on the ground tell people not to go to the police?

FTA69

* The disarmament of the IRA has been demanded by the Irish people who are of the opinion that there is no need for its continued existance and that the search for peace must take place WITHOUT the threat of paramilitary violence

And as I keep repeating to your good self, demilitarisation is also "demanded" by the Irish people. Just as politics must continue without paramilitaries, it must continue without the threat of the police or thousands of British soldiers. The issue of arms is not relating solely to Republicans slutmonkey, and to concentrate exclusively on one armed group while ignoring others is a policy doomed to failure.

Disarm, and disband already.

Why not relay your concerns to the British Army?

For the record, the stupidity of your argument is that the parallell you are attempting to draw between my lack of experience in ww2

My post in that regard was broad-based and it used WW2 as but one example. The point was that we are not limited to commenting on issues with which we have direct experience.

and your lack of experience with the IRA is that you are an IRA apologist who likes to make dark hints about how much he knows about things

Dark hints? What "dark hints" are these a chara? I go on my own analysis and personal experiences, nothing else.

See the posts above for an expose on that. How much "movement" do we have on IRA decommissioning again? None whatsoever.

The IRA have put three "substantial" amounts of weapons verifiably beyond use. They were also prepared to put ALL their arms beyond use which is movement in itself.

We have no evidence at all that the IRA has destroyed any significant part of its arsenal,

Yes we have, we have the word of De Chastelain, an independent observer put in place by the Agreement you are quoting so often.

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote:

And as I keep repeating to your good self, demilitarisation is also "demanded" by the Irish people.

Speaking strictly for myself, I expect demilitarisation to be a consequence of the elimination of paramilitarism. It's just plain silly to expect demilitarisation to happen while paramilitaries continue to exist.

FTA69 wrote:

Just as politics must continue without paramilitaries, it must continue without the threat of the police or thousands of British soldiers.

The "threat" of the police? There will always be police, as unpalatable as that idea is to those of a criminal bent. As to thousands of British soldiers, see above.

FTA69 wrote:

Why not relay your concerns to the British Army?

I don't think you're a stupid person, so why insult our intelligence by suggesting that the armed forces of a sovereign state should disarm and disband?

FTA69

Speaking strictly for myself, I expect demilitarisation to be a consequence of the elimination of paramilitarism.

And speaking for myself I expect an end of paramilitarism (by the IRA anyway) to be the consequence of demilitarisation and policing reform but there you have it. I am also of the opinion that one will not completely happen before the other, they have to run concurrently and that is why I oppose this continued examination of IRA arms while completely ignoring British ones.

The "threat" of the police? There will always be police

I know that, but there won't always be a police force who maintains big brother surveillance on Nationalists as well as refusing to dismantle the apparatus of collusion etc.

I don't think you're a stupid person, so why insult our intelligence by suggesting that the armed forces of a sovereign state should disarm and disband?

I never called for the disbandment of the British Army, rather their withdrawal from areas, indeed a country, in which they are not wanted or needed.

Cork

The IRA have to stop criminality and cease all activity.

Their disbandment needs to happen asap.

Their weapons cannot be used as baragining chips.

The IRA sees itself as the legitimate government of this country.

It has of course zero mandate and very little support.

FTA69

Their weapons cannot be used as baragining chips.

But British Army ones can? You ignored this question the last time as well.

The IRA sees itself as the legitimate government of this country.

No it doesn't, and before you start racing towards Google to dig up extracts of the Green Book you should examine the age and time in which that document was produced.

It has of course zero mandate and very little support.

Who said it does? No armed groups in this country have a mandate.

Cork

FTA69 wrote:

No it doesn't, and before you start racing towards Google to dig up extracts of the Green Book you should examine the age and time in which that document was produced.

So has it replaced?

It is very hard to get clarification of this from the current IRA leadership.

What has it been replaced with??

IRA needs to disband. Their continued existance is an insult to democrats. Their involvement in criminality is an absolute disgrace.

The British army needs to be reduced in NI. But it is like the chicken and egg sinario. The IRA being an illegal army needs to vanish first. Gerry Adams reminded us all the IRA has not gone away. They planned the NI raid at a time with political negottiations regarding the future of NI were been discussed.

Both SF/IRA refused to sign up to a no criminality pledge at these talks - a pledge that would gaurentee personal and property safety.


The IRA's continued existance and activity has nothing to do with
republicanism and has alot to do with pure criminality.

FTA69

So has it replaced?

I don't know, I'm not an IRA member.

What has it been replaced with??

After the 1986 Army Convention and Ard Fheis a crucial step was taken in that direction. Sinn Féin agreed to take their seats within Leinster House and as such the notions of governmental legitimacy etc were abandoned.

Their continued existance is an insult to democrats.

Yeah, and the continued Big Brother surveillance by the PSNI in Nationalist areas, the continued ram-rodding of bigots through Nationalist areas, the continued troop levels are an insult to any semblance of democracy we have here as well.

The British army needs to be reduced in NI

It needs to be removed entirely.

The IRA being an illegal army needs to vanish first. Gerry Adams reminded us all the IRA has not gone away.

Sinn Féin wants to deal with the issue of arms in its entirity, but not just IRA arms. The IRA are not going to jump through decommisioning hoops until Ian Paisley or Michael McDowell are finally satisfied. The only way the issue of arms can be resolved is through similtaneous movement on all sides. In fact the IRA were prepared to put all arms beyond use in a historic initiative recently.

Slutmonkey57b

FTA69 wrote:

And as I keep repeating to your good self, demilitarisation is also "demanded" by the Irish people. Just as politics must continue without paramilitaries, it must continue without the threat of the police or thousands of British soldiers. The issue of arms is not relating solely to Republicans slutmonkey, and to concentrate exclusively on one armed group while ignoring others is a policy doomed to failure.

Exactly what "threat" does the police currently pose? Kindly point me in the direction of any evidence that the police are conducting a campaign of intimidation and vigilante justice? The only complaints any side of the community seem to have about people threatening them are innocent civilians in nationalist areas complaining that SF and the IRA are threatening them. Again, you're ignoring a factual point and spouting SF doctrine at me. Answer the points. The issue of IRA arms IS solely relating to the IRA and they have no excuse not to get rid of them. They are not the protectors of the nationalist community, we now have cross-border institutions monitored by the democratically elected government of the Irish State to protect their rights and needs. That was the whole point of the GFA.

Why not relay your concerns to the British Army?

Because, fairly obviously, I have no concerns about the British Army's demobilisation. All their demobilisation so far has been carried out in public, is accountable, and is no cause for concern. The IRA on the other hand have carried out no public demobilisation at all. I have no concern whatsoever that the British Army will stay in NI a moment longer than they have to.

My post in that regard was broad-based and it used WW2 as but one example. The point was that we are not limited to commenting on issues with which we have direct experience. Dark hints? What "dark hints" are these a chara? I go on my own analysis and personal experiences, nothing else.

And my point is that your "personal experiences" do not actually involve any real-time experience of the IRA's campaign, in any way, shape or form. Yet you pop up here and elsewhere to defend their actions as though they were conducting a legitimate campaign. Your analysis also seems to be politically one-sided to say the least. You say I am not qualified to comment on WW2 except in very general terms. I put it to you that I do not claim to know anything about WW2, and furthermore I am not in your position of being an apologist for terrorist actions. (read holocaust denier) I am merely attempting to show you the futility of your point.

The IRA have put three "substantial" amounts of weapons verifiably beyond use. They were also prepared to put ALL their arms beyond use which is movement in itself.

Aha! We get to the nub of the matter.

1: Define "substantial". What actual percentage of the IRA's arms catalogue has been put "beyond use"?
>Nobody knows because they won't tell us.
2: Define "Beyond use".
>Notice they don't say "beyond recovery". What actual methodology was used?
3: Please point out the locations of these destroyed weapons.
4: Please provide serial numbers for the "destroyed" weapons so we can verify that they do not turn up, say in five years time, at a bank robbery somewhere.
5: Please provide an accurate inventory of IRA weapons so we can judge for ourselves what operational impact the "loss" of these weapons might have.
>If the IRA really is an "army" as its apologists claim when discussing "regrettable" civilian casualties, then it must know how many weapons it has, within a reasonable margin of error.
6: Why does the IRA not allow any photographic or video evidence of the decommissioning process?
>The British Army does not have to provide evidence of a destroyed checkpoint, or a removed regiment, since these are large public entitites and we can SEE they're not there anymore. Before you start on that point.


Why should I get these assurances?
1: Because the IRA refuses to provide me with proof.
2: Because the IRA have not proved to be trustworthy in the past.
3: Because I'm a citizen and I demand it of them.

Until I get those assurances, I will continue to believe that the IRA has, in fact, not decomissioned anything of significance, and that it has no intention of doing so.

Yes we have, we have the word of De Chastelain, an independent observer put in place by the Agreement you are quoting so often.

Who also complained about the lack of transparancy, stalling and co-operation from the IRA.

Sinn Féin wants to deal with the issue of arms in its entirity, but not just IRA arms. The IRA are not going to jump through decommisioning hoops until Ian Paisley or Michael McDowell are finally satisfied. The only way the issue of arms can be resolved is through similtaneous movement on all sides. In fact the IRA were prepared to put all arms beyond use in a historic initiative recently.

This is the sort of spin that drives people up the wall here.

1: It is the Irish People who want the arms got rid of, not one or two politicians.
2: The British Army made the first, and by far the largest moves on demobilisation. The IRA, by comparison, has done nothing (see above).
3: The IRA's moves are only "historic" in their glacial slowness. Who cares what SF and the IRA want? We don't. We voted to get rid of them. Get rid of them already, and stop pretending that SF or the IRA are here to protect our interests. They arent, they're there to protect their own interests which have little or nothing to do with what the Irish people want.

bonkey

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

1: Define "substantial". What actual percentage of the IRA's arms catalogue has been put "beyond use"?
>Nobody knows because they won't tell us.

They waon't tell you because all parties in the negotiations agreed that this information did not need to be released into the public domain, but simply had to be made available to a mutually agreed upon intermediary (de Chastelaine, as it turned out to be).

2: Define "Beyond use".
>Notice they don't say "beyond recovery". What actual methodology was used?

They say "beyond use" because all parties in the negotiations agreed that this is what would constitute an act of decomissioning, to be verified by a neutral third party (guess who...de Chastelaine again).

I'm thinking at this stage that your problem is actually with what all parties agreed to, rather than what the IRA have done so far. I could go through the rest of your post, but it will all say the same...

You're complaining that what the IRA have done isn't good enough. Thats fair enough....everyone can hold their view. However, what the IRA have done is what was agreed upon (other than that they haven't fully decomissioned....but thats not all you're complaining about.)

Why should I get these assurances?

Quite simply....you shouldn't. Or, if you feel you should, then it is not with Sinn Fein or the IRA you should have your beef, but rather those who weer involved in the negotiations who are notionally representing you but who agreed that you shouldn't get these assurances.

Lets also not ignore the irony that you're criticising the IRA for not living up to whats expected/demanded of them whilst making demands contrary to what was agreed.

So basically....its ok for you to disregard the detail of the negotiated agreement, but not for them.

It might be what you want to see as spin which drives people up the wall, but I'm pretty sure that those on the opposite side of the fence who also want to arrive at a peaceful settlement would say more or less the same about your arguments, given that they've frequently been used as reasons to avoid progress.

Until I get those assurances, I will continue to believe that the IRA has, in fact, not decomissioned anything of significance, and that it has no intention of doing so.

You do know that its impossible for the IRA to ever prove that they have fully decomissioned?

If they supply a list listnig every single weapon they have ever held, as well as a fully detailed breakdown of where and when (if ever) it was used, its serial numbers, and how it was destroyed, along with a pikle of scrap metal that can be verified to contain every single milligram of mass listed on that list.......does that prove it?

No, it doesn't...because you simply have to say "How do I know that this is a full list".

You're stuck in a Catch-22 mindset from what I can see. You won't believe the IRA until they have met your demands....but they can't prove that they have met your demands until you believe the information they have given you.

2: The British Army made the first, and by far the largest moves on demobilisation. The IRA, by comparison, has done nothing (see above).

Perhaps because the IRA don't see the British Army as the other side of hte coin, but rather the Unionist militant organisations who are being totally ignored in terms of the cries of "you have to decomission before we take a single step forward" ???

3: The IRA's moves are only "historic" in their glacial slowness.

Selective arguemnt. It would be more accurate to say that the moves on all sides in the North are historic in their glacial slowness. The fact that you choose to highlight only one group as embodynig this problem is a direct demonstration of one of the key reasons that all sides move with such slowness. No party is going to disadvantage itself by agreeing to cave into public pressure when the other parties aren't even being pressured for comparable action.

Who cares what SF and the IRA want?

I would have said anyone who wants a negotiated peace, rather than a conceded defeat that is never going to happen....

We voted to get rid of them.

I can't remember when there was a vote to get rid of Sinn Fein. In fact, I can't remember when there was a vote to get rid of any democratic party in this country.

jc

FTA69

Himself's post has stated most of what I was going to say.

mycroft

You're stuck in a Catch-22 mindset from what I can see. You won't believe the IRA until they have met your demands....but they can't prove that they have met your demands until you believe the information they have given you.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/26/ireland.guns/

Detectives said those arrested were suspected of helping to finance the purchase of scores of handguns and other firearms in Florida gun stores in 1999 and 2000, the Associated Press reported.

They were being interrogated on suspicion of involvement in the "illegal importation of firearms by republican terrorists," a police statement said.

Detectives said those arrested were suspected of helping to finance the purchase of scores of handguns and other firearms in Florida gun stores in 1999 and 2000, the Associated Press reported.

Call me nuts but any group commited to decomissioning and disarmeant, while smuggling guns, you start to question their commitment to the peace process.

Slutmonkey57b

I sincerely doubt that FTA, bonkey is much more informed, intelligent and eloquant than anyone else on the forum. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and ask you to cover the points at the beginning of the post that bonkey hasn't answered for you.

1: What threat does the police force represent to the nationalist community given that the only complaints the community are making are about IRA intimidation - not loyalist or police intimidation? And how does this prevent the IRA from decommissioning? Why should we believe SF when they say that "the community does not trust the police" when the community is currently complaining that they want to use the police but are being prevented from doing so - by SF and the IRA?

2: What exactly prevents the IRA from showing some form of good faith and proving its detractors wrong by issueing pictures of the decommissioned weapons? It chooses not to grab an obvious piece of high ground and instead makes itself look like childish morons for refusing to release a picture of what amounts, by all accounts, to a pile of concrete.

3: Do SF and the IRA really expect people to take them seriously on this issue when they spend all their time whining about how the British Army allegedly isn't demobilising - despite the fact that the Army is the only entity that HAS visibly demobilised? And all the posts above relate to what the Army is doing - not the loyalist paramilitaries.

4: Why should we allow any of the paramilitaries up north to continue waving their guns about and pretend they represent anyone? Why should an acceptance of compromise equate to giving the paramilitaries everything they demand regardless?

Slutmonkey57b

mycroft wrote:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/26/ireland.guns/


Call me nuts but any group commited to decomissioning and disarmeant, while smuggling guns, you start to question their commitment to the peace process.

And call me equally nuts, but doesn't that negate their "historic achievements" of decommissioning under the GFA? Decommission unknown amounts of old guns, buy in potentially larger amount of newer guns, bish bash bosh, decommissioning "problem" solved.

While I accept bonkey's points above that the IRA may have done the letter of what was agreed in the GFA, this proves that since they have no intention of sticking to the substance of it, the onus should definitely be on them to prove to us that they are doing what they were asked to do.

My comments relating to voting to get rid of "them" referred to guns, not political parties.

AmenToThat

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

1: What threat does the police force represent to the nationalist community given that the only complaints the community are making are about IRA intimidation - not loyalist or police intimidation?

I know these questions were not intended for me but Im fairly sure Nuala O Loan gets plenty of complaints each year about continued PSNI/RUC intimidation and brutality and those are only the ones that are actually being reported!

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

And how does this prevent the IRA from decommissioning?

Doesnt prevent the IRA from decommissioning.
Its the failure of Ian Paisley's DUP to accept the terms of decommisioning under the good friday agreement that has stopped the process of putting arms beyond use.

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Why should we believe SF when they say that "the community does not trust the police" when the community is currently complaining that they want to use the police but are being prevented from doing so - by SF and the IRA?

Are you implying that the views of a section of the population in the Short Strand area represent the views of all nationalists in the 6 counties in regards to SF? Recent opinion polls show that SF support in the six counties has remainded strong despit recent events so obviously its not the whole 'community' who believes this. BTW Im not for one second imply that members of the IRA havnt intimidated people Im simply pointing out that such sweeping generalizations are innacurate.

I also thinks its safe to say that some who vote SDLP may be doing alot of the shouting about IRA intimidation at the moment which is strange as alot of them are safely locked away in middle class suburbs and rural areas where they have minimal day to day contact with SF or the IRA.
As such I dont think Im being to cynical in claiming some of this may be done for electoral reasons.

AmenToThat

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

And call me equally nuts, but doesn't that negate their "historic achievements" of decommissioning under the GFA? Decommission unknown amounts of old guns, buy in potentially larger amount of newer guns, bish bash bosh, decommissioning "problem" solved.

It is of course quiet true that the IRA could if it wished re-arm which leads one to wonder why people are so hung up on photos of IRA decommisioning?
This lends more credence to the 'humiliation of the IRA theory' which is certainly they way to go if you dont want the peace process to work.
Its also shows that no matter what the IRA do they wont be believed and if enough people take this particular stance then the peace process is doomed to failure anyways.

mycroft

AmenToThat wrote:

I know these questions were not intended for me but Im fairly sure Nuala O Loan gets plenty of complaints each year about continued PSNI/RUC intimidation and brutality and those are only the ones that are actually being reported!

Speaking as someone who's met Nuala Ni Lohan, she's proud of the fact that the the split of catholic/protestants making complaints to her office, is representive of the two groups overal populations

As in 48% Catholic 52% approximately.

Translation, if the intimidation was continued as widespread you claim or people distrusted her office, the relgious background of the people going to her office would be skewed.

Furthermore it suggest that more than a few protestants have issues with the PSNI, and could be a healthy sign as an end to institutisled racism and the perception of the same in the north.

mycroft

AmenToThat wrote:

Its also shows that no matter what the IRA do they wont be believed and if enough people take this particular stance then the peace process is doomed to failure anyways.

No I think it shows that a terrorist group arming and recruiting while engaged in a peace process isn't something they should be doing.

We go a few y'know months without something like this turning up every now and again.

And incidently "no matter what the IRA do they wont be believed?'

Yeah, gun smuggling, training, recruiting, having members roam the south in fake gardai uniforms, alledged bank robberies, actual robberies, punishment beatings, perversion of the course of justice, and the express offer of murdering people to a griefing family, is just a few examples of what they do which inspires our confidence

I tell you what it's not what the IRA do that fuels our doubts about their commitment to the peace process, it's what I'd like to see them stop doing, that'll make me believe their commitment to the peace process.

Slutmonkey57b

AmenToThat wrote:

It is of course quiet true that the IRA could if it wished re-arm which leads one to wonder why people are so hung up on photos of IRA decommisioning?
This lends more credence to the 'humiliation of the IRA theory' which is certainly they way to go if you dont want the peace process to work.
Its also shows that no matter what the IRA do they wont be believed and if enough people take this particular stance then the peace process is doomed to failure anyways.

While it may be true that there are unionists who follow the "humilation of the IRA" principle, the fact remains that the IRA could, very easily, slap off a LOT of the criticism they get by just being a tiny bit more forthright with what they're doing. A photograph is a nothing, it's a tool. It could be a way of saying "Look how serious we are, we're doing the right thing here and we're doing more than you are. We're doing this, you're doing nothing, prove us wrong". Instead they choose to see it as an attempted insult rather than an obvious way of getting one up on what amounts to an idiotic position by the unionists. given SF's impressive spinning capability, I can't see how they couldn't use this as a stick to beat the unionists with for being intransigent.

The British Army's very public decommissioning of watchtowers and demobilisation of units allows it to carry the moral high ground - nobody can realistically claim the the Army has not started to pull out - not without looking silly anyway. The IRA could have a similar opportunity, but they don't take it - instead they hide behind a weaselly description of the GFA and expect us to believe what they say as gospel. While bonkey is right, and there are probably plenty of people who will never believe what the IRA tell them as gospel truth, there is an easy middle ground whereby providing a little more detailed information and documented public proof, the IRA could start making believable statements on decommissioning.

Slutmonkey57b

mycroft wrote:

Speaking as someone who's met Nuala Ni Lohan, she's proud of the fact that the the split of catholic/protestants making complaints to her office, is representive of the two groups overal populations

As in 48% Catholic 52% approximately.

Translation, if the intimidation was continued as widespread you claim or people distrusted her office, the relgious background of the people going to her office would be skewed.

Furthermore it suggest that more than a few protestants have issues with the PSNI, and could be a healthy sign as an end to institutisled racism and the perception of the same in the north.

Pessimistically, it could also prove that both sides of the divide are as bad as each other.

FTA69

1: What threat does the police force represent to the nationalist community given that the only complaints the community are making are about IRA intimidation - not loyalist or police intimidation?

What threats do the police pose to the community? Well owing to the fact the PSNI beat Paul Devenney comatose in the Short Strand area in 2002, judging by the fact they also cut the fire hoses used to extinguish petrol bombs thrown into that area, judging by the fact they maintain big brother surveillance apparatus in that area and all over the 6 Counties I'd say they pose a very big threat to the safety and well-being of Nationalists. You assert that people are not complaining about police intimidation in the 6 Counties, yes they are slutmonkey, and widespread distrust remains.

And how does this prevent the IRA from decommissioning?

Because issues such as this will not be dealt with unless there is movement on both sides.

Why should we believe SF when they say that "the community does not trust the police" when the community is currently complaining that they want to use the police but are being prevented from doing so - by SF and the IRA?

Who is complaining about intimidation now? The McCartney family have welcomed the latest initiatives by Sinn Féin and the IRA. Why should you believe Sinn Féin when they say the majority of Nationalists trust the police? Because they are the majority Nationalist party that's why.

2: What exactly prevents the IRA from showing some form of good faith and proving its detractors wrong by issueing pictures of the decommissioned weapons?

Because that is not what was agreed upon in the GFA, also that demand was made by Paisley in an attempt to forcing the IRA to "humiliate" itself. At the end of the day slutmonkey the IRA was prepared to put ALL its arms beyond use and to have that deed confirmed and witnessed by General John De Chastelain.

3: Do SF and the IRA really expect people to take them seriously on this issue when they spend all their time whining about how the British Army allegedly isn't demobilising - despite the fact that the Army is the only entity that HAS visibly demobilised?

It has also visibly remobilised in areas such as Roslea in Fermanagh.

4: Why should we allow any of the paramilitaries up north to continue waving their guns about and pretend they represent anyone? Why should an acceptance of compromise equate to giving the paramilitaries everything they demand regardless?

Because an acceptance of compromise would invovle all sides moving together on the above issues. Not this nonsense argument that it is IRA arms alone that are stalling this process.