[article] Gerry Adams Addreses the IRA

bonkey · 07-04-2005 4:07pm

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Is that not what we are talking about here?

I dunno. I coulda sworn the topic we were discussing was a call from Adams that the IRA denounce violence completely. I would go so far as to say that every single political commentary I heard regarding it onthe day in question mentioned that he stopped short of demanding actual disbandment.

So, I woul dhave to say no, it most definitely is not what we are talking about here.

There is currently talk of disbanding the IRA

There may well be. There's been talk of same by all non-republican factions involved in the GFA, as well as countless other groups who feel the need to stick their nose in too. What there hasn't been is talk from Sinn Fein or the IRA suggesting or saying that its time for this to happen.

Did I say different?

I'm sorry. I thought you had a point to make when you were saying that people came in here to crib about Republicanism. If it wasn't that they shouldn't be cribbing, what - exactly - was the point? I seem to have missed it.

I have a problem with constant criticism of republicans in the light of statements like last night.

Why not? They deserve it. They have a history of making "important" statements like the one of last night, only to find wriggle-room in the words used at a later date whenever they are asked to live up to them. When Sinn Fein show an ability to make statements and negotiations in good faith, then I - and hopefully others - will attach some import to their statements when they make them, rather than waiting to see what actions follow, because at present thats the only reliable way of judging their apparent intent.

Your bloody right I'm gonna criticise people who dont attach relevance to it.

On what grounds?

What statements of Sinn Fein in the past can you point to that they have stuck to unequivocably? No wriggling? No introduction of ifs, buts, and maybes after the fact? No deciding that what they promised to do would now be dependant on others doing something else that was never included in the original claims.

When you have a group like SF with a history of maknig statements that you cannot judge at face value, how can you validly criticise someone for refusing to take a new statment at face value?

And isn't the timing amazing....just before an election, and just after Rvd. Paisley said that no matter what they did, he'd never speak to them. But its ok...Sinn Fein have said there isn't even a hint of electioneering involved...so that must also be true? Right?

Take it in it's context bonkey.

The context is Adam's speech. He didn't mention disbandment at all....yet you brought it up twice, and on each occasion offered a seperate description of what was happening : disbandment / being on the brink of disbandment.

Suppose it depends on perceptions of what is wrong. I disagree with your analogy bonkey.

You're entitled to, but whether you like it or not, the reality is that Sinn Fein and the IRA are currently the biggest obstacle which needs to be dealt with ebfore we can go anywhere, so thats where people's attention is focussed.

Now, you can argue that they weer manouevered into that position by an unsympathetic media, by a run of bad luck with events as they turned out, or for whatever reason you like, but right now they are the problem which needs to be fixed first.

You can't solve one before the other.

So, given that there's no movement from the Unionist side.....what does that logic say about Sinn Fein's latest staement, if not that its an empty gesture?

If you believe progress can only be achieved unilaterally, then you cannot logically believe that Sinn Fein actually offered anything other than empty platitudes in Adam's statement.

So it would seem you're either clarifynig that your position is illogical, or you're contradicting your own belief that its wrong to negatively pre-judge this statement of Adams'.

Whats stopping the IRA "reinstating" tomorrow, even if they agree to disband?

Nothing. So why don't they disband, and show the duplicity of those making the demands? For once, rather than looking for wriggle-room, or insisting that it be an inherent part of the agreement (a la the decomissioning negotiations), just do it. Just do whats asked, with no ifs, buts, or maybes. Just once.

If we have a ceasefire, the unionist will have no excuses..............

IIRC, they stopped quite short of saying that they'd never return to violence. Wriggle-room.

if we decommission, the brits will have no excuses,

But they negotiated a deal where they'd never have to reveal - even to the other side - what was decomissioned, and then hung everything on the use of the word "significant". Wriggle-room.

..........if we disband, everyone will have no excuses.........."""

I guess that would depend on how they disbanded. because I can only see it happening couched in terms of...you've guessed it...wriggle room.

same repeated crap.

Pretty much my assessment of both sides. I haven't seen anyone involved actually do anything original since the IRA caught everyone on the hop with their initial cease-fire which led to the second, and then to the GFA.

I'm happy for the IRA to disband if it was part of developing a society that was going to cultivate lasting equality.

Nice words...but its a chicken-and-egg situation. I can't see how you could even begin developing a society of lasting equality while anyone at the table has a private army sitting in the shadows behind them.

I want unionists to feel welcome in a United Ireland.

See that bit I was saying about understanding the term compromise? That sentence shows that your version of compromise is fundamentally incompatible with the version of compromise that those you would compromise with (i.e. the Unionists). Its the age old "we'll respect - but not grant - your wants, just as soon as you grant ours" approach to a settlement. And you know what....its never worked. Not once.

In this situation the ball is completely in the hands of the unionists/brits. If they fail to deliver within a decade or so......................

How is this anything other than an implicit admission that the IRA have not (and will not) put violence permanently behind them?

And yet you can suggest that even while making such predictions of how "well" they will stick to their word that it is unreasonable of others to do so with Adam's statement of yesterday?

I just can't trust the brits or the unionst....

But they should trust the people who will foster and engender this new batch of terrorists that you speak of?

I think you've made my point for me.

jc

Pal · 07-04-2005 4:12pm

.....

uberwolf · 07-04-2005 4:30pm

Pal wrote:

Gerry Adams & Martin McGuiness are both on the IRA army council

In your humble opinion? or have you got sources that you can provide. Just make it clear whether you are representing your beliefs, or otherwise.

Pal · 07-04-2005 5:03pm

<snip>

if you've a problem with a particular instance of moderation then PM the Mod in Question. I received 2 reports re: your post and non re: the other post - so it wasn't drawn to my attn. You were most likely seekign to stir - because if something had already been said - why repeat it? BTW this is rhetorical.

Mighty_Mouse · 07-04-2005 5:32pm

I'm sorry. I thought you had a point to make when you were saying that people came in here to crib about Republicanism. If it wasn't that they shouldn't be cribbing, what - exactly - was the point?

I dislike the fact that people crib about Republicans. I dont disagree with their right to do it. Are you arguing that you cannot separate the 2?

Why not? They deserve it

in your opinion. Which I fully support your right to express

They have a history of making "important" statements like the one of last night, only to find wriggle-room in the words used at a later date whenever they are asked to live up to them.

Am I presuming correctly that we are talking about ceasefire, decommission, statements etc here? Or are there particular statements you wish to point out.?

What statements of Sinn Fein in the past can you point to that they have stuck to unequivocably?

the onus is on you here bonkey to provide examples

And isn't the timing amazing....just before an election

and just after the peace process came to a grinding halt with no foreseeable way forward, of course.! Would you prefer if they waited until after the election? Anyways what’s the problem with SF putting their best face forward into an election? How can a political party be criticised for trying to win an election. Unless of course they don’t mean what they say. But then that’s where you and I disagree bonkey.

the reality is that Sinn Fein and the IRA are currently the biggest obstacle which needs to be dealt with ebfore we can go anywhere

Really? Whats the reality for republicans in south-armagh or west-belfast so? Whats the reality for people who still dont have a police force or a right to elect political representative that can affect change in their favour?

so thats where people's attention is focussed

where the Irish independent is focused etc

If you believe progress can only be achieved unilaterally, then you cannot logically believe that Sinn Fein actually offered anything other than empty platitudes in Adam's statement.

it's what makes Adams statement so admirable IMO.

So it would seem you're either clarifynig that your position is illogical, or you're contradicting your own belief that its wrong to negatively pre-judge this statement of Adams'

Fantastic! We've actually reached the stage where the argument for unilateral movement by both sides is no longer a relevant one! It's a case of republicans go first now!!! Look at the big picture Bonkey. Its a case of coordinating the implementation of the GFA. Ideally I would like to see police reform , demilitarisation, investigations into collusion etc completed before the IRA disband and remove the obstacle to government <obstacle perceived at this moment in time until unionists think of something better>

or insisting that it be an inherent part of the agreement

does anyone else here see a problem with the argument that SF are wrong for insisting that we stick to the agreement. Emphasis on agreement!!

Just do whats asked, with no ifs, buts, or maybes. Just once.

you know what, your dead right Bonkey. The world is black and white. Actually why cant the brits just get the fcuk out! That would solve it. I mean its such a simple solution.

IIRC, they stopped quite short of saying that they'd never return to violence.

So you disagree with process? You wanted the IRA to move from war one day to complete disbandment the next! Fine. If that’s your opinion. Bit unrealistic IMO but I support your right .......

But they negotiated a deal where they'd never have to reveal - even to the other side - what was decomissioned,

emphasis on "negotiated" and "deal". You left out the independent respected international evaluation part.

I guess that would depend on how they disbanded.

The IRA are not going to read out a statement written by unionists. Forget about it.

Nice words...but its a chicken-and-egg situation. I can't see how you could even begin developing a society of lasting equality while anyone at the table has a private army sitting in the shadows behind them.

I completely agree. As long as you agree that you cant develop a lasting society without a police force etc..............

See that bit I was saying about understanding the term compromise? That sentence shows that your version of compromise is fundamentally incompatible with the version of compromise that those you would compromise with

In our "lasting society" im 100% entitled to hold the ideal of a united Ireland. Just as unionists are entitled to want the North to stay separate. I don’t see where the confusion is bonkey. P.D's want privatisation, labour don't. They can still sit in government together.

How is this anything other than an implicit admission that the IRA have not (and will not) put violence permanently behind them?

It's reality Bonkey. You cannot ever negotiate truly permanent cessation of violence in the north. Not with Republicans, not with loyalists. All you can do is provide the circumstances where people have an option other than violence. Its why a "lasting" society operates as a democracy.

But they should trust the people who will foster and engender this new batch of terrorists that you speak of?

They can trust the current "batch" because the current "batch" is giving their word not to return to violence under any circumstances. Therefore the whole "batch" up north have only a window to establish democracy IMO

bonkey · 07-04-2005 7:53pm

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

the onus is on you here bonkey to provide examples

Your clarification of what the "permanancy" of what the cease-fire means would seem to suggest that you're simply closing your eyes to the examples that abound.

and just after the peace process came to a grinding halt with no foreseeable way forward, of course.!

The peace-process has been ground to a halt for quite a while now. Its not like Adams could make an announcement on something which wasn't an issue.

I'm suggesting that it may not be coincidental that this announcement arrived just as the electoral jostling starts, and perfectly timed to act as a counterfoil to the stated intransigience of Rvd. Paisley. Why not a week ago? Why not immediately when the process ground to a halt?

Would you prefer if they waited until after the election?

I'd prefer that they had made the statement earlier, to be honest....especially if they genuinely believe (as you seem to) that it is a key move in attempting to make progress.

Anyways what’s the problem with SF putting their best face forward into an election?

Absolutely nothing. But it calls into question the motives behind the statement, which in turn must call into question the sincerity of it.

Whats the reality for republicans in south-armagh or west-belfast so? Whats the reality for people who still dont have a police force or a right to elect political representative that can affect change in their favour?

I'm not seeing the bit where they are the blocking point. I haven't once suggested that Sinn Fein and the IRA are the only parties in the wrong here. What I have suggested that is that we are currently in a position whether we like it or not where the reality is that the situation is deadlocked, and all bar one of the major parties seem to be in complete agreement that it is the remaining major party - Sinn Fein and the IRA - who must make the next move.

That makes it the largest problem. Whether you think it is the largest problem with everything or not, or whether it should be the largest or not doesn't change that it is.

it's what makes Adams statement so admirable IMO.

So you're admitting that its either an empty platitude, or that it shows that one side can take a step without the other in order to make progress?

It's a case of republicans go first now!!!

No, its a case of republicans go next.

Look at the big picture Bonkey. Its a case of coordinating the implementation of the GFA.

Thats exactly what I'm seeing. I'm seeing all the big players bar one lining up and saying to that one "we've given more than our share, and your side aren't living up to the base conditions that the GFA was based on satisfactorily any more, so now its your turn".

Ideally I would like to see police reform , demilitarisation, investigations into collusion etc completed before the IRA disband

Whats that you were saying about going first? Why is it now alright for you to expect the unionists to go first?

See, I'd expect the two things to go together. There has been some reform, some demilitarisation etc. What has there been in return? Insistence that its flawed, and that until those flaws are fixed, the other side don't even have to do anything.

<obstacle perceived at this moment in time until unionists think of something better>

One could point at the imperfect reforms carried out to date, and the stonewalling of republicans and say exactly the same thing.

does anyone else here see a problem with the argument that SF are wrong for insisting that we stick to the agreement.

Could you explain why Adams' has just made a statement appealing to the IRA to effectively do nothing more than what is the basis of the GFA? If the IRA were already doing this, the statement wouldn't be necessary, so one has to wonder what moral highground SF have to insist on adherence to the agreement.

You wanted the IRA to move from war one day to complete disbandment the next!

Please don't be putting words in my mouth. I have never suggested anything so foolish.

The IRA are not going to read out a statement written by unionists. Forget about it.

There you go putting words into my mouth again. Allow me to reiterate - Please don't, and I have never suggested anything so foolish.

I completely agree. As long as you agree that you cant develop a lasting society without a police force etc..............

But the first steps in achieving that have been taken. On the other hand, we see posters here suggesting that recruitment is no problem, and your good self suggesting that it is only the current batch who have comitted to a cease-fire.

So, on one side while you have the first steps shakily taken on the various reforms, on the other, you have - if the repubilican supporters here are to be believed - a political party backed by a bunch of people on cease-fire but who are happy to recruit and train a new generation who won't be on cease-fire, also backed by the implicit threat (explicit in your case) that unless an acceptable situation is reached within 20 years, all bets are off. Oh, and while talking about acceptable situations, we'll also frequently refer to a United Ireland, just so there's no real doubt what "acceptable" ultimately means.

In our "lasting society" im 100% entitled to hold the ideal of a united Ireland.

Anyone comitted to a democratic process, and change achieved through democracy, accountability and transparency is indeed perfectly entitled to hold that ideal, and I'd have no issue with them.

Anyone who believes in any way in the acceptability of the use of force as an manner of dealing a system which they believe to be unfair to them is also entitled to hold such an ideal. Unfortunately, their holding that ideal will be the root source of the problem, and while I cannot stop them holding the opinion, I will oppose their refusal to condemn and oppose all non-democraticaction because of that belief.

P.D's want privatisation, labour don't. They can still sit in government together.

Neither of them have an army standing behind them. They understand that you work towards your goal. You accept that - at the end of the day - it is the voice of the people expressed democratically which carries the day. You accept that you may win, lose or draw, and that you do all three peacefully.. And above all else, you do not hold a sword over other people's heads, no matter how longterm the threat.

You say the Unionists have 20 years. Ask the PDs or Labour if they will conduct acts of terrorism if their wants are not met within that timeframe, if you honestly believe that your comparison is apt. The situation in the North is so far from this that I'm staggered you'd suggest its the same thing.

All you can do is provide the circumstances where people have an option other than violence.

But not by refusing to recruit your replacements, eh? Or by making sure that the replacements you recruit will honour your ceasefire?

And you really don't see why the problem is the IRA?

jc

cdebru · 07-04-2005 8:43pm

Lemming wrote:

All of the above are "operations", ie. they are planned, focused, and carried out over a duration of time to achieve a desired result.

Whilst recruitment could be considered a grey area, training & punishment beatings are most definitely black and white.

Actually, military operations would be any operation carried out in the name of the entity in question. A punishment beating is carried out in the name of the IRA and all involved are threatened with reprisals by the IRA, just like a bomb blast is carried out in the name of the IRA. There. Is. No. Difference.

no military operations are actions against british crown forces etc

Lemming wrote:

That is the only thing so far that you have ever written that I would agree with. I will, to quote the phrase, believe it when it happens. Until then, it's the same old sh*t swallowed and expelled time and again.

maybe you should not prejudge there will be plenty of time to criticise if it turns out to be a pile of ****

Lemming wrote:

Ummm, would you care to point out the clause in the GFA where that was stated??

All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.

see the words ALL PARTICIPANTS

Lemming wrote:

Interested in because it's highly relevant and a core area whicha great deal many parties are interested in seeing resolved sooner rather than later.

Which would you consider the more serious .... a body to be implemented, or disarming an active private army accountable to nobody and shouldn't exist in the first place?

Would you negotiate in good faith with someone whilst they're pointing a gun at you? Or would you tell them to lose the gun first?

i consider the whole agreement important and the whole lot has to be implemented
just because you see that part as more important that does not make it so the agreement did not give an order of importance to aspects of the agreement
no body was pointing a gun at anybody

you could just as easily say the republicans had to negotiate with the british while the british had 15000 heavily armed troops waiting in the wings

Lemming · 07-04-2005 10:09pm

cdebru wrote:

no military operations are actions against british crown forces etc

*sigh*

cdebru - Army 'A' is officially at war with army 'b' and blows up a barrack. Army 'a' unofficiall blows up a barrack belonging to army 'c'. Because the second action was not carried out against army 'b' doesn't amount to squat. It was still a military operation.

The same way that punishment beatings are carried out. The same way that intimidation is carried out, etc.

The key here is that is is all done in the name of the IRA and therefore amounts to a planned operation. It's still an "official" IRA action. It's still a "military" operation. Otherwise you've just admitted that the IRA have engaged in war crimes.

maybe you should not prejudge there will be plenty of time to criticise if it turns out to be a pile of ****

To be honest, given the amount of action thus far delivered by SF/IRA (ie. none) you'll forgive me if I don't view them in a very dim light. I gave them the benefit of the doubt for years. In that time they've proceeded to laugh in my, and the rest of both Ireland & the UK's populations faces whilst giving them the two fingers.

Action speak louder than words and well .... the rest should be fairly obvious given their track record thus far.

see the words ALL PARTICIPANTS

Indeed. ALL. *cough*cough* Would the republicans please step into the circle along side everyone else? :rolleyes:

That particualr line of thinking cuts both ways. And last time I checked, the republicans weren't holding the moral highground either.

i consider the whole agreement important and the whole lot has to be implemented[
just because you see that part as more important that does not make it so the agreement did not give an order of importance to aspects of the agreement

WTF is this logic? If the agreement, to use your own words, did not give an order of importance then why the flying f*ck do you expect SF/IRA's demands to be given priority over everyone else saying different. Majority rules and all that.....

no body was pointing a gun at anybody

Riiiiiight ... and what would you call all those thinly veiled comments about "we cannot fail, there is no alternative" which implied a return to violence unless SF/IRA got their way

you could just as easily say the republicans had to negotiate with the british while the british had 15000 heavily armed troops waiting in the wings

Ah, but a) the British army has demilitarised heavily in the North, and both publically and transparently, along with time tables. On top of that, the British army are the recognised military arm of the recognised legitimate ruling body of Northern Ireland.

You can't compare and not look like a numpty.

rsynnott · 08-04-2005 1:19am

Am I cynical in thinking he'll stick to this position until approximately 5 seconds after the general election ends?

Mighty_Mouse · 08-04-2005 1:24pm

The peace-process has been ground to a halt for quite a while now. Its not like Adams could make an announcement on something which wasn't an issue.

You practice in stating the obvious like a discovery sometimes bonkey. Look at the time-frame - peace negotiations fail - northern bank - McCartny murder - Adams declaration.

I personally see it as coming at the only time it could of. You see obviously see different though. Again I make the point of process. We basically went from a stage where negotiations fell on "humiliation" requirements from paisley, to Adams declaration. In between there were 2 "crisis" in republicanism plus an Ard Fheis to get over. Maybe he should of waited until after the election. Would you prefer statments to be made later rather than sooner?

I'd prefer that they had made the statement earlier, to be honest

Process...........negotiations as a series of steps...........things needing to happen before other things can etc........

But it calls into question the motives behind the statement, which in turn must call into question the sincerity of it.

Why.Unless you believe Adams wasn't sincere in what he said. Again I disagree with you.

I'm not seeing the bit where they are the blocking point.

you not looking hard enough. Its pretty obvious to me that IRA disbandment isnt a blocking issue for republicans.

and all bar one of the major parties seem to be in complete agreement

SF have made their major move. So whats the issue? I take it your delighted they have taken steps to relieve the deadlock.

So you're admitting that its either an empty platitude, or that it shows that one side can take a step without the other in order to make progress?

And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth!!! How is SF asking the IRA to finish as an organisation an empty platitude? Unless you believe that Gerry Adams himself controls the "off" switch! As for who takes what step. Big picture here Bonkey. I believe theres a number of steps which should have been taken by the other side long ago. This is a case of SF completing their "steps" before the rest have even gotten round to planning when theirs will be taken.

No, its a case of republicans go next.

When have republicans NOT lead the implementation of this agreement and then waited for others to follow.

I'm seeing all the big players bar one lining up and saying to that one "we've given more than our share, and your side aren't living up to the base conditions that the GFA was based on satisfactorily any more, so now its your turn".

focus explicitly on the "weve completed our share part". You must be joking, right?

who are happy to recruit and train a new generation who won't be on cease-fire, also backed by the implicit threat (explicit in your case) that unless an acceptable situation is reached within 20 years, all bets are off.

I dont see how in the world you are going to get an absolute guarantee that the IRA will never return under any circumstance. Unless you provide those currrently disenfranchised another option. Who's gonna sign your "absolute guarantee" piece of paper? I bet you a million bucks the IRA would be back on the scene if the Brits invaded the south in the morning.All I'm saying here is provide people with a political avenue to pursue a united ireland in a peaceful manner or else the IRA will always be there. Its a fact of life in Ireland as I see it.

Neither of them have an army standing behind them.

Exactly. But what if people who believe in privatisation were denied a right to politically express their opinion, were pro-actively kept at the lower ends of society by the socially motivated government. What would happen then?

But not by refusing to recruit your replacements, eh? Or by making sure that the replacements you recruit will honour your ceasefire?

You the one looking for complete disbandment. Who's gonna control what goes on in a scenario of complete disbandment. In a case of no IRA, theres no control on republican opinion. Republicans have 2 choices political pursuit of their objectives or voilent. If no political avenue exists...................what happens?

cdebru · 08-04-2005 2:19pm

Lemming wrote:

cdebru - Army 'A' is officially at war with army 'b' and blows up a barrack. Army 'a' unofficiall blows up a barrack belonging to army 'c'. Because the second action was not carried out against army 'b' doesn't amount to squat. It was still a military operation.

The same way that punishment beatings are carried out. The same way that intimidation is carried out, etc.

The key here is that is is all done in the name of the IRA and therefore amounts to a planned operation. It's still an "official" IRA action. It's still a "military" operation. Otherwise you've just admitted that the IRA have engaged in war crimes..

no not all actions by the IRA are military operations as not all actions by the British army are not military operations

just because an army is still training still recruiting does not mean it is engaged in conflict or intent on conflict

Lemming wrote:

To be honest, given the amount of action thus far delivered by SF/IRA (ie. none) you'll forgive me if I don't view them in a very dim light. I gave them the benefit of the doubt for years. In that time they've proceeded to laugh in my, and the rest of both Ireland & the UK's populations faces whilst giving them the two fingers..

the IRA have maintained a ceasefire despite various attempt to provoke them into a response by both the British and loyalists
they have decommissioned weapons in front of inspectors fronm the decommissioning body

SF have accepted the consent principle and taken part in devolved government of the 6 counties

Lemming wrote:

Action speak louder than words and well .... the rest should be fairly obvious given their track record thus far..

yes two actions of considerable decommissioning and an ceasefire

Lemming wrote:

Indeed. ALL. *cough*cough* Would the republicans please step into the circle along side everyone else? :rolleyes:.

i gave you the section you looked for it says all participants

all the parties have an influence over all the paramilitary groups

if the agreement is up and running and fully implemented then that would have an obvious influence on the IRA for example one party can not implement the agreement on its own

Lemming wrote:

That particualr line of thinking cuts both ways. And last time I checked, the republicans weren't holding the moral highground either..

i dont think anybody has a high moral ground

Lemming wrote:

WTF is this logic? If the agreement, to use your own words, did not give an order of importance then why the flying f*ck do you expect SF/IRA's demands to be given priority over everyone else saying different. Majority rules and all that......

I dont expect just SFs demands to be implemented
i expect all the aspects of the agreement to be implemented not just the ones that you would like or i would like

Lemming wrote:

Riiiiiight ... and what would you call all those thinly veiled comments about "we cannot fail, there is no alternative" which implied a return to violence unless SF/IRA got their way.

I think you are capable of seeing a veiled threat in any statement

how the **** can

we cannot fail there is no alternative

be a threat if anything it is saying there is no return to violence as that would be an alternative

Lemming wrote:

Ah, but a) the British army has demilitarised heavily in the North, and both publically and transparently, along with time tables. On top of that, the British army are the recognised military arm of the recognised legitimate ruling body of Northern Ireland.

You can't compare and not look like a numpty.

had they
have you prove of that because people in south armagh had seen no evidence of british demilitarising in 1998 that is one of the reasons the RIRA were so strong in that area

in fact last week daily Ireland had an article on the massive Forkhill base which the PSNI have left but the BRit army is staying put and have no intention to leave

legitimate in your eyes maybe

bonkey · 08-04-2005 4:10pm

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

You practice in stating the obvious like a discovery sometimes bonkey. Look at the time-frame - peace negotiations fail - northern bank - McCartny murder - Adams declaration.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear.

Explain to me why ADams couldn't have made this statement one week previously to when he did.

Thats after all of the blow-ups you listed which caused this current impasse, and before an election was formally called, the jostling started, and the DUP made their statement.

I personally see it as coming at the only time it could of.

So...if IRA members hadn't killed McCartney, you'd see no reason for this statement? The peace process wasn't already stalled at that point? Could you point out the progress that was being made prior to the McCartney affair that stalled after it, and again clarify why it would not have been possible for ADams to make this statement after the McCartney affair grabbed the headlines and before an election was called.

You see obviously see different though.

Yes - I'm not removing what I see as key points (such as the calling of an election, and possibly the DUP statement) from the timeline. You are, and you're offering no reason why the delay after the McCartney affair exploded in SF's face before the statement was issued.

Would you prefer statments to be made later rather than sooner?

Which part of why did they wait until now are you construing to even consider that I might think they should have waited longer?

Unless you believe Adams wasn't sincere in what he said.

Not so. I am questioning his motives. I'm neither blindly rejecting them as being false, nor blindly accepting them as being true. I am saying that there is little evidence to convince me that this was a genuine and meaningful declaration which SF seriously intends to put weight behind, and there is grounds to consider that it may just as easily be posturing.

you not looking hard enough. Its pretty obvious to me that IRA disbandment isnt a blocking issue for republicans.

Where did I say it was? I said that everyone major involved party except SF/IRA are agreed on what the problem is. Now, I would have thought that this made it clear that SF and the IRa are not agreed that this is the problem. How am I not looking hard enough if you're correcting me by making exactly the same point, except that you are deciding to only take the consideration of your chosen side into account, whereas I am looking at all parties.

If you choose to see the issue purely and solely in terms of how one side see it, thats entirely your business, but please bear in mind that I am looking at the Peace Process and how peace can be achieved, not how the Peace Process needs to run in order to give Republicans what they want.

SF have made their major move.

Which major move? Asking the IRa to restart/continue honouring the basic terms of the GFA? Thats a major move? Will you accept the unionists coming out and saying "we're comitted to the GFA as well, and would ask all parties with a vested unionist interest to play fair like they agreed to" as an equally major move?

Making an aspirational "we'd like to urge our other half to do what they agreed to, but insist we've no control over whether they do or not, and won't condemn them outright if they don't" statement is not a major move. It couldn't be considered so since before the ceasefire began which led to the GFA.

Words are cheap. When Sinn Fein actually do something, or when the IRA actually so something, you'll have grounds to claim a major move. Until then, their "major" action is as significant as Blair coming out and saying "yes, we know the police reform wasn't perfect, and we'd like to urge the PSNI to improve its act" would be. Now....how significant an act would you and other Republican supporters find those empty words?

So whats the issue? I take it your delighted they have taken steps to relieve the deadlock.

I'll be delighted if they have. Right now, as I have said more than once, I have doubts that they have done anything more than mouth the words they think people want to hear, and even more doubts that anything will come of it.

And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth!!!

You'll notice that :
a) I asked a question, I did not make a statement. So it would be difficult for me to have put anything in your mouth.
b) I argued that it had to be either illogical or refute the notion that one side could take unlilateral action, and your answer was that this is what made it so admirable. I didn't realise that saying "Thats what makes it so admirable" is a paraphrase of "no, neither of those options are correct. It was something else"...but I did you the courtesy of asking if I was interpreting your lack of dissent correctly.

How is SF asking the IRA to finish as an organisation an empty platitude?

Where in that entire speech did Adams ask them to end themself? He asked them : "Can you take courageous initiatives which will achieve your aims by purely political and democratic activity?" He did not suggest that they disband, nor did he ask that they accept democracy in terms other than ones which stated that it will achieve your aims. So what about a democratic process that doesn't achieve their aims? Will he ask them to accept that as well? Will he ask them to accept democracy regardless of how long a resolution takes, and regardless of what that resolution is?

Will he bollox. He's asked them to back democracy while it remains a tool to victory, and not once did he suggest they disband and/or permanently put violence, criminality behind them.

And besides...at the end of the day, Adams insists he (and Sinn Fein) can do nothing more than ask. They can't bring pressure to bear. They can't offer to distance themselves from the IRA. THey can't do anything except encourage the IRA to do things the way they supposedly comitted to a decade ago.

So what - exactly - is he offering of substance. He's offering a request that the IRA don't return to violence, and, well, if they decide not to bother honouring that request....oh....no....lets not even suggest there would be reprecussions.

I believe theres a number of steps which should have been taken by the other side long ago.

And I believe there's a number of steps which should have been taken by the IRA a long time ago as well. Both sides - as I've already said - are not without blame. Its not the issue. The issue is what needs to be done next.

bonkey · 08-04-2005 4:11pm

(ctd...)

This is a case of SF completing their "steps" before the rest have even gotten round to planning when theirs will be taken.

No - this is a case of SF reciprocating for teh initial steps which have been taken that they insisted had to be taken before they'd do anything. First it was the "not until this is done", now its "but it wasn't done right, so we're still not moving". On the other hand, when you point at anything that SF and/or the IRA didn't do "right" (in both cases, "right" translates to "how we want it done")....thats when the rules-lawyers come out to clarify that they complied exactly with the letter of the law, except where they negotiated a change because they refused to accept the other side only sticking to the letter of hte law rather than the interpretation that SF prefer.

I'm seeing all the big players bar one lining up and saying to that one "we've given more than our share, and your side aren't living up to the base conditions that the GFA was based on satisfactorily any more, so now its your turn".
focus explicitly on the "weve completed our share part". You must be joking, right?

Well, if the bit you said the focus was on was actually contained in what I said, then yes, I would be joking. But (yet again) I'd never be so foolish as to suggest something like that.

I never used the word "completed" and have already clarified that I accept that the initial reforms were far from perfect but they were started, and that the onus is now on SF and the IRA to make a start on their side. If either side waits for anything to be perfect before reciprocating, we'll never get anywhere....but like I pointed out before....its not just the unionists who can pick their delaying tactics to suit their position.

I dont see how in the world you are going to get an absolute guarantee that the IRA will never return under any circumstance.

So would you agree then that when Adams or any other spokesperson says that the IRA have put violence permanently behind them that they are being duplicitous, and possibly deliberately so? (Note - its another question. I'm not assuming, I'm not putting words in your mouth....I'm asking a question.)

Who's gonna sign your "absolute guarantee" piece of paper?

What piece of paper? Did I mention a piece of paper? The only time I can recall mentioning something at all like that was telling you that I'd never be so foolish as to suggest the IRA would read something (presumably from a piece of paper) written by Unionists as a method of disbandment.

I'm seriously beginning to wonder if you're actually replying to the points that I'm making, or just looking for the sentences you can misconstrue.....

I bet you a million bucks the IRA would be back on the scene if the Brits invaded the south in the morning.

And I can guarantee you that no-one would seriously consider a cease-fire to be maintained after the other side had already broken it. If the British went on a miltiary-backed hunt for the IRA and started shooting them like dogs in the street that the IRA would also return to violence.

However, when you train your replacements, and have fanboys crying loud and wide that those replacements are not necessarily bound by the ceasefire, then you have to start to wonder just how seriously the current generation are taking their ceasefire, and whether or not its just more of a "sure we'll give this democracy lark a shot for a while, see what it gets us, restock and rearm while we're at it, and if we haven't achieved victory in 20 years....back to war we go" pseudo-ceasefire.

See - you've more or less admitted that this is exactly what it is....and I'm telling you for a fact that this is what people have a problem with.

Anyone who thinks that the problems in the North will be solved in 20 years is - I believe - kidding themselves. You might as well believe that resistance to the English occupation of Ireland should only have lasted 20 years. So anyone who thinks that a 20-year window is enough to finalise a lasting peace deal based on compromise is equally kidding themselves.

So when you have Republicans forecasting a return to violence in that timeframe....one has to wonder what they're doing other than hoping against hope that they can actually achieve victory (not compromise...I don't recall that word appearing once in Adams' speech...how unsurprising) peacefully in that timeframe.

All I'm saying here is provide people with a political avenue to pursue a united ireland

Actually, thats what the people calling for the IRA's disbandment are doing. Thats what the people who refuse to associate or deal with those who won't distance themselves from the IRa are doing. They are insisting on a political solution, and the IRA have no place in politics.

Its a fact of life in Ireland as I see it.

You'll get no argument from me on that one. Its a fact because one side see that private armies have no place in politics, and the other side believes you can't get rid of (or disssociate from) your private army until you've achieved your political aims.

But what if people who believe in privatisation were denied a right to politically express their opinion,

Right now? The only reason that SF is being refused the right to politcally express its opinion is because it has a private army standing behind it. Get rid of the army, get on a level footing, and I will fully support its right to express its opinion politically as equally as any other party's.

You the one looking for complete disbandment.

Jeez man. It was only my last post where I pointed out that you were putting words in my mouth about complete disbandment, and here you are doing it again...

Maybe I should clear my position up so you've less reason to mis-state it...

The ultimate goal of the GFA should be a peaceful compromise, which should coincide with a complete disbandment of all illegal groups. No United Ireland. No return to Westminster. A compromise. And all sides should be willing to live with that compromise.

And just as that compromise will take time to be reached, and will be initially (and possibly always) imperfect, I would expect the disbandment to be equally slow, gradual, imperfect processes. I would expect it to happen in parallel with, not subsequent to, the slow process of compromise.

This cr@p of "but you haven't finished X, so we don't have to start Y" is not part of that, no matter which side is spouting it - republican or unionist.

The IRA have done one (and only one) positive thing since the signing of the GFA, and that was their abortive disarmament. Its time for more. Why can't htey come out and say "we will curtail all activity indefinitely", for example? What possible reason do they have to not do this other than to implicitly suggest that they are preparing (timeframe unspecified) to return to violence?????

In a case of no IRA, theres no control on republican opinion.

Ex-queeze me? You're saying that the IRA serve to control republican opinion? If thats the case, then I'm even more certain that they have no place in a society which is trying to move towards democracy, where people are free to voice their own opinion and not the one some group of armed thugs tells them to voice. Anyone controlling opinion from an armed position is nothing but tyrannical and oppressive.

Republicans have 2 choices political pursuit of their objectives or voilent. If no political avenue exists...................what happens?

Oh right. Thats why we have so much terrorism down here in teh South too. All those people who can't get their way dfemocratically, they just pick up guns and bombs and start killing those who disagree.

Because you can change the word "Republicans" with "People" in that sentence, and its no less valid or invalid, unless Republicans have some inherent inability to behave like the vast majority in a democratic society can....and I'm sure you're not suggesting that.

bonkey · 08-04-2005 4:11pm

cdebru wrote:

how the **** can "we cannot fail there is no alternative" be a threat if anything it is saying there is no return to violence as that would be an alternative.

Well, lets look at it.

It could mean :

1) We are incapable of failing, and success is assured.
2) We cannot allow failure, and will attempt anything to prevent it.
3) We're lying or propagandising, because we recognise failure is possible, as there are options to avoid failure that we refuse to take even if all else has been tried.

So, maybe its not a veiled threat. It coud be a lie, propaganda or a demonstration of a deranged mind who believes in its own invincibility.

I'm open to other interpretations though.

jc

cdebru · 08-04-2005 5:35pm

bonkey wrote:

Well, lets look at it.

It could mean :

1) We are incapable of failing, and success is assured.
2) We cannot allow failure, and will attempt anything to prevent it.
3) We're lying or propagandising, because we recognise failure is possible, as there are options to avoid failure that we refuse to take even if all else has been tried.

So, maybe its not a veiled threat. It coud be a lie, propaganda or a demonstration of a deranged mind who believes in its own invincibility.

I'm open to other interpretations though.

jc

i accept it could be any of those but not a veiled threat to return to violence

sceptre · 08-04-2005 6:20pm

cdebru wrote:

i accept it could be any of those but not a veiled threat to return to violence

If it can be number 2 on bonkey's list then it can be a veiled threat to return to violence.

cdebru · 08-04-2005 6:33pm

sceptre wrote:

If it can be number 2 on bonkey's list then it can be a veiled threat to return to violence.

well in negotiating the implementation of the GFA attempting anything to suceed would not include a return to violence as that would be a way to ensure it would fail.

Lemming · 08-04-2005 7:11pm

cdebru wrote:

no not all actions by the IRA are military operations as not all actions by the British army are not military operations

So, tell me, what exactly would you call a "punishment" beating or a bank robbery? They're planned. Planned = operation. And since they're done in the name of the IRA then they're military operations. How much more simple can this get? It's black and white cdebru.

Lets look at a punishment beating. They mark someone as needing to be "dealt" with, so they'll go and figure out where he'll be, adn then they draw weapons from the local "supply" be they baseball bats, golf clubs, or guns, etc. And wait for their "target" and then beat them. They then threaten them with further reprisal if they don't keep their mouths shut.

If it looks like an operations and smells like an operation, there's a pretty good probability that it IS an operation.

just because an army is still training still recruiting does not mean it is engaged in conflict or intent on conflict

Well this is the thing - the IRA isn't a recognised army, so why are they training for aggressive action? It's not like an actual army which has a soverign constitutional mandate from the people to maintain a level of preparedness that can defend the soverign borders of that country.

the IRA have maintained a ceasefire despite various attempt to provoke them into a response by both the British and loyalists
they have decommissioned weapons in front of inspectors fronm the decommissioning body

That ceasefire is a charade. They're still beating up, killing, and thieving. That doesn't look like a ceasefire to me. It's a very very very very Monty Python-esque interpretation of one if you're trying to insist on it ...

As for decommissioning, they're well past their two year deadline for ALL weapons, so why do you think they should be given a pat on the back for giving a token gesture of which everyone has to take the word for in regards its authenticity?

yes two actions of considerable decommissioning and an ceasefire

Re: the decommissioning see my above commentary. As for the ceasefire. Geeh wizz, wasn't it nice of them to stop killing people eh? Lets give them the nobel prize for having the decency and forward-thinking to stop trying to make friends with everyone using semtex :rolleyes:

Once again I shall ask you, do you think that they deserve a big pat on the back for doing the bare minimum of not actually killing peo... oh wait, they have been killing people haven't they? Geeeh, there goes that argument again ... :rolleyes:

Ooops .....

i gave you the section you looked for it says all participants

all the parties have an influence over all the paramilitary groups

if the agreement is up and running and fully implemented then that would have an obvious influence on the IRA for example one party can not implement the agreement on its own

Ah well, that works both ways cdebru. One party cannot indeed implement the agreement on its own, and just about everyone else is asking it to meet one single requirement whilst SF/IRA asks for several in return. From where I'm standing, it pretty much looks like the only "party" not wanting to have an influence over the IRA demilitarising is "Sinn Fein" , so once again you will forgive me if I start having a coughing fit and a word that sounds like "bullsh*t" accidentally gets said.

i dont think anybody has a high moral ground

Was that before or after the McCartney killing and the Northern bank job? Oh wait ... SF/IRA have never had the moral highground whatsoever ...

I dont expect just SFs demands to be implemented
i expect all the aspects of the agreement to be implemented not just the ones that you would like or i would like

I will agree, so which comes first? If SF/IRA are so committed to the peace process, then why don't they make the gesture of good will of decommissioning their arsenal and come out smelling of roses? Why the insistence that everyone else should go first? Are they planning to shoot people in the back or something?

The other parties (ie. the majority) are asking them (the minority) to step up the plate, which they refuse to do insisting that everyone else bends over backwards for them instead.

It's pure excrement cdebru. Pure and utter excrement.

I think you are capable of seeing a veiled threat in any statement

When SF/IRA say it, it usually has conditions attached in ultra-small print. :rolleyes:

how the **** can be a threat if anything it is saying there is no return to violence as that would be an alternative

Usually when there's an impass and SF/IRA aren't getting their way and say something along those lines. Which amounts to "give us waht we want or else we might have to get nasty".

had they
have you prove of that because people in south armagh had seen no evidence of british demilitarising in 1998 that is one of the reasons the RIRA were so strong in that area

IN 1998, ahhhh I see. It's all so clear to me now. I've stepped out of time and jumped forward to 2005 :rolleyes:

in fact last week daily Ireland had an article on the massive Forkhill base which the PSNI have left but the BRit army is staying put and have no intention to leave

N.Ireland is still under the remit of British rule and therefore it is prudent and indeed constitutional to have forces on standby to defend N.Ireland from any enemy foreign or domestic.

There are British forces in Scotland, Wales, England & the Falklands too. There are Irish forces in Ireland. There are US forces in America, etc. What do all these places have in common? They are all recognised as being under the protection and soverign control of those respective countries.

legitimate in your eyes maybe

Funnily enough in the eyes of about half the populace of N.Ireland & the rest of the world.

cdebru · 08-04-2005 8:14pm

Lemming wrote:

So, tell me, what exactly would you call a "punishment" beating or a bank robbery? They're planned. Planned = operation. And since they're done in the name of the IRA then they're military operations. How much more simple can this get? It's black and white cdebru

Lets look at a punishment beating. They mark someone as needing to be "dealt" with, so they'll go and figure out where he'll be, adn then they draw weapons from the local "supply" be they baseball bats, golf clubs, or guns, etc. And wait for their "target" and then beat them. They then threaten them with further reprisal if they don't keep their mouths shut.

If it looks like an operations and smells like an operation, there's a pretty good probability that it IS an operation..

punishment beating are a side effect of having no acceptable police force they are not aimed at removing the british army from Ireland and are not military operations to which the ceasefire would apply

Lemming wrote:

Well this is the thing - the IRA isn't a recognised army, so why are they training for aggressive action? It's not like an actual army which has a soverign constitutional mandate from the people to maintain a level of preparedness that can defend the soverign borders of that country..

well if you want to get into that then why ask them to call a ceasefire

Lemming wrote:

That ceasefire is a charade. They're still beating up, killing, and thieving. That doesn't look like a ceasefire to me. It's a very very very very Monty Python-esque interpretation of one if you're trying to insist on it ....

ok if its not a ceasefire what is it

Lemming wrote:

As for decommissioning, they're well past their two year deadline for ALL weapons, so why do you think they should be given a pat on the back for giving a token gesture of which everyone has to take the word for in regards its authenticity?.

there is no 2 year deadline

the international decommisioning body oversaw it as per agreement

Lemming wrote:

Re: the decommissioning see my above commentary. As for the ceasefire. Geeh wizz, wasn't it nice of them to stop killing people eh? Lets give them the nobel prize for having the decency and forward-thinking to stop trying to make friends with everyone using semtex :rolleyes:

Once again I shall ask you, do you think that they deserve a big pat on the back for doing the bare minimum of not actually killing peo... oh wait, they have been killing people haven't they? Geeeh, there goes that argument again ... :rolleyes:

Ooops ......

yes I think they deserve a pat on the back

Lemming wrote:

Ah well, that works both ways cdebru. One party cannot indeed implement the agreement on its own, and just about everyone else is asking it to meet one single requirement whilst SF/IRA asks for several in return. From where I'm standing, it pretty much looks like the only "party" not wanting to have an influence over the IRA demilitarising is "Sinn Fein" , so once again you will forgive me if I start having a coughing fit and a word that sounds like "bullsh*t" accidentally gets said..

well if thats the way it looks to you keep coughing hopefully you will get it out of your system soon

Lemming wrote:

Was that before or after the McCartney killing and the Northern bank job? Oh wait ... SF/IRA have never had the moral highground whatsoever ....

I dont see anybody on a high moral ground as i said

Lemming wrote:

I will agree, so which comes first? If SF/IRA are so committed to the peace process, then why don't they make the gesture of good will of decommissioning their arsenal and come out smelling of roses? Why the insistence that everyone else should go first? Are they planning to shoot people in the back or something?.

I suggest you read adams statement of the other day it seems that is exactly what adams is suggesting

Lemming wrote:

The other parties (ie. the majority) are asking them (the minority) to step up the plate, which they refuse to do insisting that everyone else bends over backwards for them instead. .

again read adams statement

Lemming wrote:

It's pure excrement cdebru. Pure and utter excrement..

what is

Lemming wrote:

When SF/IRA say it, it usually has conditions attached in ultra-small print. :rolleyes:
.

i think you go out of your way to invent it if you cannot find it

Lemming wrote:

Usually when there's an impass and SF/IRA aren't getting their way and say something along those lines. Which amounts to "give us waht we want or else we might have to get nasty"..

well the quote you gave did not suggest anything like that

Lemming wrote:

IN 1998, ahhhh I see. It's all so clear to me now. I've stepped out of time and jumped forward to 2005 :rolleyes:.

you brought up negotiating that is when the GFA was negotiated

Lemming wrote:

N.Ireland is still under the remit of British rule and therefore it is prudent and indeed constitutional to have forces on standby to defend N.Ireland from any enemy foreign or domestic.

There are British forces in Scotland, Wales, England & the Falklands too. There are Irish forces in Ireland. There are US forces in America, etc. What do all these places have in common? They are all recognised as being under the protection and soverign control of those respective countries..

i suggest you read the GFA again and the commitments on security and justice
the problem is that in those countries you have mentioned it involves troops in their own country accepted by the people with democratically elected governments as you have said nearly half of the population of the 6 counties do not accept the british army as legitimate or as their army

Lemming wrote:

Funnily enough in the eyes of about half the populace of N.Ireland & the rest of the world.

and since when have you been spokeperson for the rest of the world or did you consult them in the last couple of hours

Cork · 08-04-2005 8:23pm

Sand wrote:

And theres no worries about any reaction from the Army Council. I really really doubt Gerry does his politicking on the Council via the media.

SF are quiet expert at media stunts.

I doubt if tthe speech came as a surprise to the IRA leadership.

oscarBravo · 08-04-2005 11:10pm

cdebru wrote:

punishment beating are a side effect of having no acceptable police force

It still bewilders me how anyone can say this with a straight face. How is this different, apart from semantically, from saying that an anonymous group of psychopaths with nail-studded baseball bats and pickaxe handles are more acceptable than the police. Because, let's face it, that's what statements like the above are saying.

I accept that the RUC were in many ways a deeply flawed police force. I'm even prepared to accept that the PSNI is an imperfect police force.

But worse than mindless thugs who delight in delivering summary maimings? Come on.

BuffyBot · 08-04-2005 11:30pm

punishment beating are a side effect of having no acceptable police force they are not aimed at removing the british army from Ireland and are not military operations to which the ceasefire would apply

So the "army" is only an army sometimes? Times when it suits them it would seem.

Lemming · 08-04-2005 11:57pm

cdebru wrote:

punishment beating are a side effect of having no acceptable police force they are not aimed at removing the british army from Ireland and are not military operations to which the ceasefire would apply

So in otherwords they are illegal operations carried out by a "military" unit. That's a warcrime .....

Further, tell me .... what does the term "ceasefire" mean? It means a cessation of violence or otherwise subversive activity. Can you point out the clause in the GFA which allows SF/IRA an a-la-carte ceasefire?

well if you want to get into that then why ask them to call a ceasefire

Since it's the most appropriate terminology to use regardless. A ceasefire is not a purely military concept and applies equally valid to whomever it is used by.

ok if its not a ceasefire what is it

A charade being permitted by people who are unimaginative politically and unwilling to make a brass-balls decision and say "enough. Either in or out and if you go out we will f*cking break you by any means necessary"

there is no 2 year deadline

Hmmm, so where did all that mention of a two year deadline come from by various political sides in N.Ireland after the GFA was settled then? Perhaps you mean that SF/IRA thinks there's no 2 year deadline?

yes I think they deserve a pat on the back

That would be quite a foolish and naieve view to think that doing that alone deserves such merit. A pat on the back would be them taking the initiative and showing some good faith, instead of constantly being reactive to other people with a cynical "what's in it for us" attitude they always show - usually followed up with nothing but platitudes on their part.

well if thats the way it looks to you keep coughing hopefully you will get it out of your system soon

Somehow I doubt it.

I dont see anybody on a high moral ground as i said

Well, when ones vision is limited by the blinkers provided by SF/IRA indoctrination I'm hardly surprised.

I suggest you read adams statement of the other day it seems that is exactly what adams is suggesting

Have you been paying ANY attention to what's actually been going on or are you stuck in shinner-party-broadcast land? Adams made that announcement in a reactive manner as per usual, not because they're taking the initiative or showing good faith but because the pressure is on and they're losing friends and support rapidly around the globe. Further, they have not taken any initiative since nothing has been done besides a political stunt by Adams. Words are nothing without actions to back them up in this game.

again read adams statement

Again come out of shiner-party-broadcast-land and take a look around.

what is

The entire negotiating stance of SF/IRA towards the GFA. It's something I'd expect to see out of a Monty Python sketch.

i think you go out of your way to invent it if you cannot find it

Nope, I just cut through the bullsh*t and read between the lines. My party affilation is "anti-bullsh*t" cdebru. No political party gets preference.

well the quote you gave did not suggest anything like that

That's becaus there was nothing around it to give it context. Expression cdebru, conveys an awful lot to the slant of an statement.

you brought up negotiating that is when the GFA was negotiated

Indeed, when it was negotiated. And since that signing, the British army has demilitarised. What's your point? To think that the British army would suddenly just depart at GFA-signing + 1 second is, to put mildly, the thinking of a child with a very low IQ.

i suggest you read the GFA again and the commitments on security and justice
the problem is that in those countries you have mentioned it involves troops in their own country accepted by the people with democratically elected governments as you have said nearly half of the population of the 6 counties do not accept the british army as legitimate or as their army

Whether or not they do not accept is moot. They live in a region of land that is internationally recognised and legally accepted as being part of the United Kingdom.

and since when have you been spokeperson for the rest of the world or did you consult them in the last couple of hours

I didn't need to. Northern Ireland is recognised by the UN, the EU, international sporting events, etc as being part of the UK.

cdebru · 09-04-2005 12:19am

oscarBravo wrote:

It still bewilders me how anyone can say this with a straight face. How is this different, apart from semantically, from saying that an anonymous group of psychopaths with nail-studded baseball bats and pickaxe handles are more acceptable than the police. Because, let's face it, that's what statements like the above are saying.

I accept that the RUC were in many ways a deeply flawed police force. I'm even prepared to accept that the PSNI is an imperfect police force.

But worse than mindless thugs who delight in delivering summary maimings? Come on.

did i say that it was acceptable NO

punishment beatings are not an offensive military operation as part of an armed struggle to remove the british army from Ireland

they are a side affect of an unacceptable police force the solution to which is to create an acceptable police force something which has started and hopefully will be available in the very near future

cdebru · 09-04-2005 12:23am

BuffyBot wrote:

So the "army" is only an army sometimes? Times when it suits them it would seem.

no the army is the army

the question is in relation to military operations
the cessation is of military operations against the british crown forces and loyalist paramilitaries

beating the **** out of someone with a baseball bat is not a military operation against either of the above

BuffyBot · 09-04-2005 12:37am

beating the **** out of someone with a baseball bat is not a military operation against either of the above

Exactly, so why is the Irish Republican Army going all non-military. Fighting a "war" is one thing, fighting criminals by being criminals..well is criminal.

Lemming · 09-04-2005 12:41am

cdebru wrote:

beating the **** out of someone with a baseball bat is not a military operation against either of the above

I think thte relevant bit is the seceond half of that sentence. It is, by your own words still a military operation, which is in contravention of the GFA. That ceasefire was not a-la-carte as you seem to think.

cdebru · 09-04-2005 12:56am

BuffyBot wrote:

Exactly, so why is the Irish Republican Army going all non-military. Fighting a "war" is one thing, fighting criminals by being criminals..well is criminal.

the reason it was done was because of a lack of an alternative if the RUC/PSNI are unacceptable for all the various reasons then you effectively dont have a police force in a situation like that undersireable elements try to take advantage

now people had two choices let them do what they want which is obviously unacceptable or go to the people who are supposed to be defending the area (IRA) and get them to deal with it

the IRA obviously dont have courts and prisons and the normal way to deal with these people that would be done in a normal society so they resorted to beating the **** out of them or shooting them that has continued on

the solution is getting the policing issue sorted out ASAP

Mighty_Mouse · 09-04-2005 12:04pm

The irony of dancing around replies with acussations of misquoting, evasiveness, etc !!!!!!

Explain to me why ADams couldn't have made this statement one week previously to when he did.

So were arguing over a week!!! Again I've already stated that I dont have a problem with SF putting their best face forward into the election. But let me spell my view out here in relation to the timing of this statement.

This statement is made at a time where the maximum impact can be made on the republican community. The fact of the matter is the McCartney murder, bank robbery, American reaction etc has probably helped crystalise the fact that the IRA must go away in the short-term for political progress to be made. Thats the point i'm make when I talk about process and things having to happen before others can. Do you think that Adams could of made the same statement a few days after Paisley called for humility and the peace negotiations fell through? I dont.

Where in that entire speech did Adams ask them to end themself? He asked them : "Can you take courageous initiatives which will achieve your aims by purely political and democratic activity?"

Whats the IRA without the voilent struggle? Nothing IMO. ie non existant. Again Bonkey your not gonna get the "words" the media and unionists have construed here. But its pretty obvious to me what he means.

Anyone who thinks that the problems in the North will be solved in 20 years is - I believe - kidding themselves.

Ok Bonkey Ill be very very clear. Im not saying that unless the problems of the north are resolved the IRA will return. Im saying that unless clear avanues of political representation are opened to republicans, nationalists, catholics to tackles everything from social rights to a united Ireland, then IMO its innevitable the IRA will return.

I just hope the Brits & unionists dont return to the politics of the 70's in 5-10 years time. Personally, I dont trust them not to.

What piece of paper? Did I mention a piece of paper?

Take the bloody sentance in context! The point here is : where is your ABSOLUTE guarantee that the IRA will never return gonna come from?

Explain to me how in the absence of political avenues that ever citizen of a democracy is entitled to, how people will not return to voilence?

The ultimate goal of the GFA should be a peaceful compromise, which should coincide with a complete disbandment of all illegal groups. No United Ireland. No return to Westminster. A compromise. And all sides should be willing to live with that compromise.

For a man with such an amount to say, your sure make funny statements!!! Do you honestly think republicans signed up to drop the ideal of a united Ireland!! Are you completely mad! Where does this disneyland notion of a peaceful solution to the north come from. How you gonna implement it?
Its a compromise to provide everyone in the north with the right to pursue their ideals peacefully & politically. Nothing more.

Ex-queeze me? You're saying that the IRA serve to control republican opinion?

Again Bonkey, try and stick to the point made.
At the moment the IRA decides on whether there is a voilent struggle. Without the IRA, people will decide for themselves

Cork · 09-04-2005 12:10pm

cdebru wrote:

the IRA obviously dont have courts and prisons and the normal way to deal with these people that would be done in a normal society so they resorted to beating the **** out of them or shooting them that has continued on

The IRA have continued on with kangaroo courts, punishment beatings and criminality for years. This is not acceptable.

It is 7 years since the Good Friday agreement. The Adams speech was an election stunt.

Maybe it might win SF a few votes.

Exactly, so why is the Irish Republican Army going all non-military. Fighting a "war" is one thing, fighting criminals by being criminals..well is criminal.

Criminality and the IRA is nothing new. Here I think both governments share some blame as the they should have put it up to SF/IRA long before the NI bank raid and the Killing of Robert McCartney.

beating the **** out of someone with a baseball bat is not a military operation

It is not. There is no excuse for this type of behaviour.

Hard men chasing down people down dark allys and beating the pulp out of them.

Yet SF do love mouthing on about human rights.

[article] Gerry Adams Addreses the IRA

Comments