[Article] IRA still training recruits, says IMC

axer

axer wrote:

If you know the answer then why are you asking me?? Of course they would be giving weapons training...considering thats what the organisation uses. Whether the training is for a specific purpose or general training I could not tell you.

so you disagree with this type of training and like I asked earlier, you think I shouldn't pm sparks(mod of the shooting forum) to arrange an illegal training session? you think the IRA arent above the law when doing this and therefore should be sanctioned for same?

Why is it such a surprise that they are training their members??

I dont recall expressing surprise,I do recall expressing disapproval-where are you getting this "surprise vibe"?

What good are their members if they do not know how to use a weapon?

Why should they be training members at all, that was my question, what is the purpose?... I mean,I'd be no good with semtex either, hell I dont know what it looks like, theres no need or demand to train me in its use - likewise the law or the peole who vote to have the law implimented dont condone this, they imprison people in the here and now who carry on like this and rightly so.

I am not condoning them but i really cant see why people are so surprised to hear that the PIRA are recruiting and training their members.

Again where are you getting this "surprise vibe", I thought this was about disclosing the indefensible and not surprise at the disclosure.

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

Now the people who were saying the above then, are looking at us in disbelief and telling us, "Sure of course the lads have to keep up the training, keep a hand it as were, sure look at the discipline problems we'd have if we didn't"

I think they're also saying that the lads need to train for the eventuality of going back to "war" (i.e. abandoning the ceasefire and recommencing their full-on terrorist ways).

I'm just at a loss as to how they can say this and claim that they are fully comitted to a peaceful solution. They're not. They're committed to an acceptable peaceful (without ever specifying what is acceptable short of at least a United Ireland), and a return to violence if that isn't achieved within some unspecified timeframe (but which we can take is within our own lifetimes).

It staggers me that anyone on either side of the fence can expect centuries of conflict to be resolved and done away with inside one lifetime, but this is the reality that we're facing. At least those who are attempting to genuinely work within the framework are acknowledging that its a long road which will be taken one step at a time. The IRA on the other hand are sending the message that if its not a short road to what they want, they're goinmg to make sure they're ready, willing and able to step up the violence and crime and return to terrorism

jc

jman0

mycroft wrote:

I do so love that anti-interrogation euphemism. The school of the americas used to teach "anti interrogation" techniques to Pinochets boys (If "you're" interrogated like this, "you'll" eventually talk)

If you are genuinely curious about anti-interrogation techniques (you appear to confuse this with interrogation/torture) you can read about it in "the Green Book". It details the common technique of saying absolutely nothing and staring at a point on the wall. It Details the techinques of physical torture a volunteer is likely to endure when captured and what a volunteer can do to survive them.
link:
http://www.residentgroups.fsnet.co.uk/greenbook2.htm

mycroft wrote:

I just do so love this. Six months ago we were just there, just on the brink we were told, the lads were about to make an historic move to finally put the past behind them and disband, if the DUP hadn't thrown it all away.

Ok this is actually news to me mycroft. When did the IRA agree to disband?

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

If you are genuinely curious about anti-interrogation techniques (you appear to confuse this with interrogation/torture) you can read about it in "the Green Book". It details the common technique of saying absolutely nothing and staring at a point on the wall. It Details the techinques of physical torture a volunteer is likely to endure when captured and what a volunteer can do to survive them.

You need a seminar on "whatever you say, say nothing?"

And I'm not confused "anti-interrogation" techniques has been a euphemism for torture training for decades.

Ok this is actually news to me mycroft. When did the IRA agree to disband?

I merely pointed out that the republican side of the board were outraged that the DUP had insisted on photos of decommisioning and the discussion of an historic breakthrough, that all fell apart in December.

bonkey wrote:

I'm just at a loss as to how they can say this and claim that they are fully comitted to a peaceful solution. They're not. They're committed to an acceptable peaceful (without ever specifying what is acceptable short of at least a United Ireland), and a return to violence if that isn't achieved within some unspecified timeframe (but which we can take is within our own lifetimes).

Pretty much sums up my position, I'm staggered how they (SF) can mouth on about peace and reconcilitation, and moving forward, while they (the IRA) are arming, are recruiting, and are treating parts of NI as their own despotitic little state

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Cdebru, whats your problem with those guys, given that, (1)the Peace process was given a lot of help from the CIA's political masters.(2)The London met police dont have a sectarian record iirc and (3) a guy from the Dublin dept of justice, is well quite frankly a guy from the Dublin dept of justice who presumably has the confidence of the Dáil as regards his bona fidé's and ergo of the people of Ireland.

CIA surely you do not need a lesson as to why they could not be viewed as impartial
the guy from the met police was in charge of an operation that led to the shooting dead of an unarmed IRA volunteer
the Department of Justice has been involved in conducting the 26 counties camapign against republicans for the last 30 odd years

then there is Mr Alderdice who has been a political opponent of SF and republicans all his live he is a unionist

My point is that none of these people come to this with any form of impartiality that would be needed to maintain any sense of an independent body monitoring the situation

Do you honestly looking at the membership of the commission believe that they would question in any real way any of the "intelligence" that is presented to them by the PSNI british military intelligence the Gardai MI5/6

bonkey

jman0 wrote:

It details the common technique of saying absolutely nothing and staring at a point on the wall. It Details the techinques of physical torture a volunteer is likely to endure when captured and what a volunteer can do to survive them.

Sounds exactly like what mycroft said....except that he made it somewhat clearer that exactly the same information tells you how people will resist you interrogating them, and what you can do to them to break that resistance.

<sarcasm>
But of course, the IRA have far more to fear from the various police forces of Ireland and Britain regarding the use of torture than anyone the IRA ever capture.

This is, of course, because the IRA are the good guys who always play by the rules, so there'd be nothing even potentially nefarious in their learning anti-interrogation techniques.
</sarcasm>

jc

axer

mycroft wrote:

We've actually been down this road on this board many times before. What you know and what you can prove are very different things. Serious statements from justice ministers and senior police officals have stated they know the IRA commited the robbery. In a similar vein we know the Real IRA commited the Omagh bombing. Putting together a airtight case takes time, and resoucres.

Oh you mean serious statements by the likes of minister McDoogle and his people. The same person who claims that Gerry Adams is in the IRA. Sure - I would believe everything he says.

mycroft wrote:

Okay 1; survive how? Secondly seeing as the decommisioning process is about putting weapons beyond use, trashing a bunch of weapons while trying to smuggle in another set of "clean" weapons makes a mockery of a commitment to decomission.

Every army needs training and new recruits. It does not continue to function otherwise. The decommissioning process never completed as it broke down due to the DUP's demands for photos - which they knew the IRA would never agree to, so your point "trashing a bunch of weapons while trying to smuggle in another set of "clean" weapons makes a mockery of a commitment to decomission" holds no water as there was no full decommissioning.

mycroft wrote:

So the IRA can be on ceasefire, murder a Gardai, commit punishment beatings and robberies and still be on ceasefire?

Firstly it wasnt murder of gerry mccabe it was manslaughter - it wasnt premeditated to kill him. I strongly condem the killing of the Garda McCabe. Also so called punishment beatings are happening both sides of the divide. How come you forget about the UDA, LVF and the UVF.

mycroft wrote:

Okay why does the CIA officer, the London Met officer, and the representive of the Irish Justice ministry have reasons? And what are they?

CIA Officer - controlled by Bush, who is an "ally" of britain and is from the same country that is constantly committing atrocities all over the world and getting away with them - who hire other countries to perform their torture of prisoners - who will not sign up to the War Crimes court.
London Met officer - Who has probably dealt with IRA bombings in London, but didnt have to deal with the dublin/monaghan bombings and all the other acts of terrorism by the unionist paramilitaries - that would put him a bit biased and as cdebru said "the guy from the met police was in charge of an operation that led to the shooting dead of an unarmed IRA volunteer"
Representive of the Irish Justice ministry - It is well known and is clearly obvious that the minister for justice in Ireland is very biased against the IRA and Sinn Fein.

mycroft wrote:

Because you can't rip apart the credibility of a report and then in the same breath use it to defend another assertion. If you don't find it credible don't use it to support your claims.

I have already shown the contradictions of the report. Since you believe that the report is credible then I can use. Why, do you disagree with the report?

mycroft wrote:

No but it does allow you a little bit of moral flexibility and wriggle room when faced with the less papable aspects of the republican history, you can say "I support repubilicanism just not that specific act. Tell me, who do you support? the INLA? the IRSP? What group in the republican movement echos your point of view?

I do not support any paramilitary group. I strongly believe that the republic of Ireland should consist of all of Ireland. I do not trust the British government - they have been shown time and time again to be blatent liars. While I do not agree with violence per se, I do believe sometimes people must take up arms in order to protect themselves. If somebody was attacking me or my friends with violence I would not just sit back and wait for help - I would return the fight with violence. There is no republican group that echos my point of view fully, but parts of some, and I think I have a right to decide what parts I agree with or dont agree with.
Now mycroft I have answered your questions, so tell me. Do you support any political parties north or south? Would you consider yourself to be a republican? Do you believe that the republic of Ireland should include both north and south of the island? Do you believe that the DUP are 100% right in their demands?

jman0

Bonkey and mycroft

You should read the relevant pages from the book i linked.
"Anti-interrogation" is not a study of torture, it's how to beat an interrogation.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

CIA surely you do not need a lesson as to why they could not be viewed as impartial

Enlighten me

the guy from the met police was in charge of an operation that led to the shooting dead of an unarmed IRA volunteer

Oh so he was personally in charge of an operation in London countering an IRA operation-links?

the Department of Justice has been involved in conducting the 26 counties camapign against republicans for the last 30 odd years

Thats laughable cdebru.

then there is Mr Alderdice who has been a political opponent of SF and republicans all his live he is a unionist

My point is that none of these people come to this with any form of impartiality that would be needed to maintain any sense of an independent body monitoring the situation

I can understand your misgivings on Alderdice, but surely even you must understand that one out of the four being from the unionist family proitects the unionists interest in their perception of impartiality.
One of the four being fromn the U.S inteligence, involves an IRA netral person in overseeing what the body is deliberating on and how its deliberating.
The other two are effectively the UK and Irish governments independent scrutineers.

Do you honestly looking at the membership of the commission believe that they would question in any real way any of the "intelligence" that is presented to them by the PSNI british military intelligence the Gardai MI5/6

You've given me no reason to suggest otherwise.
Give me your reasons and I'll evaluate them and post my evaluation of your reasons.

axer wrote:

Every army needs training and new recruits. It does not continue to function otherwise.

you do mean every legal army dont you? you seem to avoid the illegality and lack of support here in this day and age for an IRA campaign...

Firstly it wasnt murder of gerry mccabe it was manslaughter - it wasnt premeditated to kill him. I strongly condem the killing of the Garda McCabe. Also so called punishment beatings are happening both sides of the divide. How come you forget about the UDA, LVF and the UVF.

One doesnt justify the other,I know there are people robbing banks to enrich them selves,but that doesnt justify me doing the same.

CIA Officer - controlled by Bush, who is an "ally" of britain and is from the same country that is constantly committing atrocities all over the world and getting away with them - who hire other countries to perform their torture of prisoners - who will not sign up to the War Crimes court.

Clinton ( a great friend of the peace process) is and was a great friend of Britain-does that mean we should tell him to go be damned aswell?? your argument isnt holding water here.

London Met officer - Who has probably dealt with IRA bombings in London, but didnt have to deal with the dublin/monaghan bombings and all the other acts of terrorism by the unionist paramilitaries - that would put him a bit biased and as cdebru said "the guy from the met police was in charge of an operation that led to the shooting dead of an unarmed IRA volunteer"

To follow that logic, we should disband the gardaí as they have been involved in operations against the IRA and indeed we shouldn't trust them at all for that reason... I doubt you'll get too many of the Irish people to go down that road for you.
We shouldnt trust the elected government either for that matter as they have passed laws specefically to tackle IRA crime...
Oh for the love of God-do you not see the ridiculousness of your logic?

Representive of the Irish Justice ministry - It is well known and is clearly obvious that the minister for justice in Ireland is very biased against the IRA and Sinn Fein.

That comment is laughable,do we even know the politics of the person, did you investigate that before you came up with a pre conceived opinion?

I do not support any paramilitary group. I strongly believe that the republic of Ireland should consist of all of Ireland. I do not trust the British government - they have been shown time and time again to be blatent liars.

Be honest now-have you ever told a lie-ever?

While I do not agree with violence per se, I do believe sometimes people must take up arms in order to protect themselves.

In this day and age thats left to the authorities, and again I'd suggest that you take a long hard look at what the vast majority of the people of the country you are talking about think before advocating violence.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

In this day and age thats left to the authorities.

The same "authorities" that allow British forces to cross over the border, kidnap and murder and irish citizen and then do nothing about it and fob off the family?

jman0

jman0 wrote:

The same "authorities" that allow British forces to cross over the border, kidnap and murder and irish citizen and then do nothing about it and fob off the family?

You have to go back 30 years to justify training today? (I assume you are referring to the subject of ADIG's thread from a while back)

Your excuse is so lame to be honest, it needs a stretcher.

axer

Earthman wrote:

you do mean every legal army dont you? you seem to avoid the illegality and lack of support here in this day and age for an IRA campaign...

What the **** are you on about? No I mean ANY army. I did not even mention anything about support or lack of it...where did you get that from?? Any army (including the illegal Irish Citizens' Army and the illegal Irish Volunteers) need (needed) new recruits and training to function.

Earthman wrote:

One doesnt justify the other,I know there are people robbing banks to enrich them selves,but that doesnt justify me doing the same.

But it is ok to give the PIRA most criticism for this and forget about the other side. I dont believe that the PIRA should be involved in any criminal operations, just like I dont think any loyalist paramilitaries should be either.

Earthman wrote:

Clinton ( a great friend of the peace process) is and was a great friend of Britain-does that mean we should tell him to go be damned aswell?? your argument isnt holding water here.

The difference is that clinton is alot smarter than bush can ever be. Plus Ian Paisley pretty much told clinton to be damned and to not be involved.

Earthman wrote:

To follow that logic, we should disband the gardaí as they have been involved in operations against the IRA and indeed we shouldn't trust them at all for that reason... I doubt you'll get too many of the Irish people to go down that road for you.

I dont know how you are comming to that conclusion. Please explain.

Earthman wrote:

We shouldnt trust the elected government either for that matter as they have passed laws specefically to tackle IRA crime...

Please explain this also. The difference in this that you are forgetting is the the bombings were in london where that police officer is from.

Earthman wrote:

Oh for the love of God-do you not see the ridiculousness of your logic?

I say the same to you.
That comment is laughable,do we even know the politics of the person, did you investigate that before you came up with a pre conceived opinion?[/QUOTE]Well he was appointed by the Irish government, which would suggest he has their interests at heart.

Earthman wrote:

Be honest now-have you ever told a lie-ever? In this day and age thats left to the authorities,

Really? so that makes it ok for the british government to lie in order for people to be murdered. I dont believe I have ever told a lie that has ended up with someone else dying as a result. Don't try and justify their lies like that.

Earthman wrote:

and again I'd suggest that you take a long hard look at what the vast majority of the people of the country you are talking about think before advocating violence.

I'm sorry I have only advocated violence as a means of defence - dont try and twist it any other way - and you do know what the vast majority think? I've asked this on a different thread but - What would you do if your house was burned down just because you were catholic? Fair enough - it works both ways - but you dont try to take the righteous stand and tell me that people cannot fight back.

Boggle

What a load of crap this thread has turned into...

Should the IRA disband? Yes.
Have they disbanded? No.
Could they end the ceasefire? Yes.
Should we therefore be surprised they are still training and recruiting? No.

God you guys are like children arguing to mammy over who did what to who...

MT

Ah, you miss a few days after starting a thread and look what happens. Apologists dive in from every corner trashing the report – but using convenient sections to their advantage. Then it’s the members of the commission itself – a good smearing of their characters seems to be in order here. By the way when unearth did Alderdice declare himself to be a Unionist? As far as I’m aware the commission was picked with the deliberate intention of excluding representatives from the unionist/nationalist/republican communities to aid impartiality. Anyway failing this, the role of the IMC itself is attacked – not part of the GFA we’re told.

Throw in alongside all of this enough conspiracy theories to rival a month’s collection of UFO Today and this thread has morphed into a veritable provo fantasy. Which of course is wonderful when you haven’t got the facts on your side. Much easier to sustain a 30 year campaign of violence with paranoid delusions and conspiracy yarns when you now the cold hard facts would make the brave boyos down the arms dump look like a bunch bloodthirsty psychopaths – heaven forbid!

But what really irks me about all these retrospective interpretations of the GFA by republicans is the glaring pink elephant in the corner that they choose to ignore – the dearth of a spirit of peace. If Sinn Fein and the IRA were really committed to a future of reconciliation and compromise wouldn’t they realise that all this sophistry over whether decommissioning was or wasn’t in the agreement looks just a little bit disingenuous. The fairly obvious conclusion being that if someone so strenuously highlights the lack of a requirement covering decommissioning their real motive is to rationalise and even justify the lack of such an event occurring. Yet another tactic in Sinn Fein’s attempt to create an illusion of peace. Just like equality and justice, it will of course be an entirely selective peace on their terms.

Finally, can I just say that as someone unfortunate enough to live in the cess pit that is NI, this quibling and ambivalent attitude to the actions and existence of their armed wing is exactly why I don’t want these hoodlums governing the place. It’s not bigotry as the party’s propaganda would have you believe, nor the manipulative rays of false-consciousness beamed at my tinfoil headpiece by some mandarin in London, it’s not a colonial or post-colonial psychosis engineered by the monstrous Sassenach or any other republican fantasy. The reason is simple – a desire for self-preservation.

Put simply if Sinn Fein are given the levers of government they get control over policing and justice. Setting aside the polite fictions of the IRA and SF being completely separate organisations, this additional power would simply give the nutcases in the ‘Ra the full authority to expand their squalid fiefdoms all over the North. Just as Turkeys don’t fancy Christmas, I don’t fancy a visit at night from Slab Murphy dressed up in a PSNI uniform carrying a warrant to enter my house. The PSNI may not be everything the people sought in a new departure on policing but we’d do no end of pining for them if there comes a day when Provos with truncheons get to take over the local beat.

mycroft

axer wrote:

Oh you mean serious statements by the likes of minister McDoogle and his people. The same person who claims that Gerry Adams is in the IRA. Sure - I would believe everything he says.

And again we've been down this road before on this forum, irish1 comes out of looking very stupid.

The shorthand version of it goes like this.

Adams was in the IRA, Adams has lied about his status in the IRA before, Adams can offer no proof he has left the IRA, therefore suspicions about Adams status in the IRA are valid.

Every army needs training and new recruits. It does not continue to function otherwise. The decommissioning process never completed as it broke down due to the DUP's demands for photos - which they knew the IRA would never agree to, so your point "trashing a bunch of weapons while trying to smuggle in another set of "clean" weapons makes a mockery of a commitment to decomission" holds no water as there was no full decommissioning.

Wibble. Are you and logic not on speaking terms?

How can a terrorist organisation (sod this army malarky) which is claiming to be commited to a decommissioning process be commited to that process if it is still aquiring guns?

Firstly it wasnt murder of gerry mccabe it was manslaughter - it wasnt premeditated to kill him. I strongly condem the killing of the Garda McCabe. Also so called punishment beatings are happening both sides of the divide. How come you forget about the UDA, LVF and the UVF.

I'm sure thats comfort to his widow. And I do so love pick n mix republicanism, taking the good parts of the struggle and disowning the bad. I don't care how you play it firing repeatadly at someone and then saying "ach I didn't mean to kill him" is horse****.

And I haven't forgotten unionist punishment beatings, but is it an acceptable yardstick of behaviour to point at the other guy and say "he's just as bad as ourselves"

CIA Officer - controlled by Bush, who is an "ally" of britain and is from the same country that is constantly committing atrocities all over the world and getting away with them - who hire other countries to perform their torture of prisoners - who will not sign up to the War Crimes court.

And this is all the personal fault on the same officer? Busy bloke.

London Met officer - Who has probably dealt with IRA bombings in London, but didnt have to deal with the dublin/monaghan bombings and all the other acts of terrorism by the unionist paramilitaries - that would put him a bit biased and as cdebru said "the guy from the met police was in charge of an operation that led to the shooting dead of an unarmed IRA volunteer"

Again, no evidence just conjecture, and guilt by association.

Representive of the Irish Justice ministry - It is well known and is clearly obvious that the minister for justice in Ireland is very biased against the IRA and Sinn Fein.

Oh in the name of sweet merciful christ.........

Sorry. But the flip side of this is very simple, you can bitch about the makeup of the IMC, but you can't present a credible alternative that would satisfy all parties.

Lots of people on the other sides have looked past the chequered history of senior republicans, nice to see you guys can't move forward.

I have already shown the contradictions of the report. Since you believe that the report is credible then I can use. Why, do you disagree with the report?

And again debating 101. Whether I believe the report or not is irrelevant. You can't rubbish a reports credibility for one point, and cite it as proof of your opinion a few lines down.

I do not support any paramilitary group. I strongly believe that the republic of Ireland should consist of all of Ireland. I do not trust the British government - they have been shown time and time again to be blatent liars. While I do not agree with violence per se, I do believe sometimes people must take up arms in order to protect themselves. If somebody was attacking me or my friends with violence I would not just sit back and wait for help - I would return the fight with violence. There is no republican group that echos my point of view fully, but parts of some, and I think I have a right to decide what parts I agree with or dont agree with.

But here you are defending the IRA's right to arm, to train and recruit. See it's the wonderful way of pix n mix republicanism you can take the good stuff, but can ignore the bad.

Now mycroft I have answered your questions, so tell me. Do you support any political parties north or south? Would you consider yourself to be a republican? Do you believe that the republic of Ireland should include both north and south of the island? Do you believe that the DUP are 100% right in their demands?

1. Not anymore.

2. Absolutely not.

3. Not as it stands at the moment.

4. No.

mycroft

axer wrote:

What the **** are you on about? No I mean ANY army. I did not even mention anything about support or lack of it...where did you get that from?? Any army (including the illegal Irish Citizens' Army and the illegal Irish Volunteers) need (needed) new recruits and training to function.

Oh please spare us the disingenious indignation, lets look at your post.

axer wrote:

Every army needs training and new recruits. It does not continue to function otherwise. The decommissioning process never completed as it broke down due to the DUP's demands for photos - which they knew the IRA would never agree to, so your point "trashing a bunch of weapons while trying to smuggle in another set of "clean" weapons makes a mockery of a commitment to decomission" holds no water as there was no full decommissioning.

and then this

axer wrote:

Why is it such a surprise that they are training their members?? What good are their members if they do not know how to use a weapon? I am not condoning them but i really cant see why people are so surprised to hear that the PIRA are recruiting and training their members

You were refering to the IRA as an army. You do a diservice to the intelligence of everyone on this thread by trying to shift your position.

But it is ok to give the PIRA most criticism for this and forget about the other side. I dont believe that the PIRA should be involved in any criminal operations, just like I dont think any loyalist paramilitaries should be either.

Theres two things, one the PIRA is alot better at this the unionists. Two quit holding up others misdeeds as defence of your own side.

I dont know how you are comming to that conclusion. Please explain.

Like I said you and logic, not on speaking terms

Please explain this also. The difference in this that you are forgetting is the the bombings were in london where that police officer is from.

How do you know? Also does this mean we need to exclude everyone who's from a place were bombs have gone off from involvement in the peace process, because they may have issues?

Well he was appointed by the Irish government, which would suggest he has their interests at heart.

He's probably a civil servant, high ranking offical type, however as has be pointed out, innocent until proven guilty care to provide evidence of his biased nature?

I'm sorry I have only advocated violence as a means of defence - dont try and twist it any other way - and you do know what the vast majority think? I've asked this on a different thread but - What would you do if your house was burned down just because you were catholic? Fair enough - it works both ways - but you dont try to take the righteous stand and tell me that people cannot fight back.

And again, quit using events from 30years ago to justify current IRA training and recruitment. And don't say you don't jusitify it, you may not have said it, everything you've said on this thread implies that you do.

axer

axer wrote:

What the **** are you on about? No I mean ANY army.

good,so you'll have no problem if the Gardaí don't arrest the legitimate army of Ireland for training in Glenmalure but if they catch anyone else firing off illegally held firearms, they will arrest them, you'll have no problems there.Remember this thread is about illegal activity.

I did not even mention anything about support or lack of it...where did you get that from?? Any army (including the illegal Irish Citizens' Army and the illegal Irish Volunteers) need (needed) new recruits and training to function.

so ? everything needs something to function,you are pointing out the obvious and pretending this thread is about surprise, it's not, it's about ongo-ing illegal activity.

But it is ok to give the PIRA most criticism for this and forget about the other side.

who's forgetting about the other side? as I said one doesnt justify the other in this day and age

I dont believe that the PIRA should be involved in any criminal operations, just like I dont think any loyalist paramilitaries should be either.

fine.

The difference is that clinton is alot smarter than bush can ever be. Plus Ian Paisley pretty much told clinton to be damned and to not be involved.

eh? I'm referring to your point not paisleys, the CIA was there with clinton too, by his side.

I dont know how you are comming to that conclusion. Please explain.

I already did.
You say someone who has been on the opposite side of the IRA cant be trusted to make a judgement on them.
The Gardaí have as have the legislature of this country -so ergo by your logic we cant trust any of them with respect to the IRA, which is bad logic.

Please explain this also. The difference in this that you are forgetting is the the bombings were in london where that police officer is from.

That logic would rule out Blair from dealing in this as his country was attacked by the IRA,heck it would even rule out the current mayor of London...
Silly logic basically.

I say the same to you.
That comment is laughable,do we even know the politics of the person, did you investigate that before you came up with a pre conceived opinion?Well he was appointed by the Irish government, which would suggest he has their interests at heart.

Do you indeed...,I see so you dont trust the elected politicians of the state? says a lot really, but you're entitled to that view, just dont expect too many people to share it.

Really? so that makes it ok for the british government to lie in order for people to be murdered. I dont believe I have ever told a lie that has ended up with someone else dying as a result. Don't try and justify their lies like that.

You used the telling of lies as a reason for not trusting someone-ergo if you have lied we cant trust you-hence the question have you ever lied.Basically I'm pointying out to you that the reasoning you offer doesnt hold water.

I'm sorry I have only advocated violence as a means of defence - dont try and twist it any other way

IRA violence in this day and age is obsolete-even SF agree with me on that.

and you do know what the vast majority think?

I can safely say that a new IRA campaign if they don't immediately get what they want would result in outrage from the vast majority of people-yes I can safely say that, do you have anything that points otherwise?

I've asked this on a different thread but - What would you do if your house was burned down just because you were catholic? Fair enough - it works both ways - but you dont try to take the righteous stand and tell me that people cannot fight back.

In this day and age? I wouldnt advocate burning down other peoples houses,I certainly would not.

axer

mycroft wrote:

You were refering to the IRA as an army. You do a diservice to the intelligence of everyone on this thread by trying to shift your position.

What in gods name are you talking about? I have not shifted my position. Are you refering to me using the word member? Is it not right call a soldier in the irish army "a member of the defence forces"?

mycroft wrote:

Theres two things, one the PIRA is alot better at this the unionists. Two quit holding up others misdeeds as defence of your own side.

Wheres the proof of this? I am not defending punishment beatings etc - I have said that on a number of occaisions but you seem to keep missing these.

mycroft wrote:

Like I said you and logic, not on speaking terms

I think it is more like your logic is running out of control.

mycroft wrote:

How do you know? Also does this mean we need to exclude everyone who's from a place were bombs have gone off from involvement in the peace process, because they may have issues?

It just gives bias to the person involved - and I dont see how you can see that.

mycroft wrote:

He's probably a civil servant, high ranking offical type, however as has be pointed out, innocent until proven guilty care to provide evidence of his biased nature?

This is a joke considering the posts earlier.

mycroft wrote:

And again, quit using events from 30years ago to justify current IRA training and recruitment. And don't say you don't jusitify it, you may not have said it, everything you've said on this thread implies that you do.

Does it? well in that case - everything you said would indicate that you are a unionist and do not condone violence/criminality by loyalists as you seem to think that its ok for them because the PIRA "are better at it".

Tone it down please-theres no need to get angry-remember if there is anybody still reading this thread, they are well able to see where posters are coming from without the poster themselves getting frustrated and shouting

mycroft

axer wrote:

What in gods name are you talking about? I have not shifted my position. Are you refering to me using the word member? Is it not right call a soldier in the irish army "a member of the defence forces"? Where the **** do you come up with this ****?

*boggle* yes you have. You've been defending the IRA's right to train and arm, and then got indignant saying you were just talking about any hypothetical army.

Wheres the proof of this? I am not defending punishment beatings etc - I have said that on a number of occaisions but you seem to keep missing these.

No I have seen them, and they run allong the class line "Now I don't condone violence/punishment beatings, but......(insert PSNI not providing system of policing/unionists are at it as well) It's a qualified condemnation.

I think it is more like your logic is running out of control.

Uh, huh

It just gives bias to the person involved - and I dont see how you can see that.

Oh I do, by that rational, everyone born in belfast, antrim or derry should not be allowed to particapte in the IMC or high level GFA meetings. Or manchester, or canary warf, or guillford, or warrington? See how inane your logic is?

This is a joke coming from you.

Charming, you're assuming this offical is biased, and have yet to provide any evidence to back up this assertion.

Does it? well in that case - everything you said would indicate that you are a unionist and do not condone violence/criminality by loyalists as you seem to think that its ok for them because the PIRA "are better at it".

The childishness of this comment doesn't bare dignifying it with a response.

axer

Earthman wrote:

good,so you'll have no problem if the Gardaí don't arrest the legitimate army of Ireland for training in Glenmalure but if they catch anyone else firing off illegally held firearms, they will arrest them, you'll have no problems there.Remember this thread is about illegal activity. so ?

I would have no problems with that. All i have been saying is that of course they will be training their members - I never said it was right.

Earthman wrote:

everything needs something to function,you are pointing out the obvious and pretending this thread is about surprise, it's not, it's about ongo-ing illegal activity.

Of course the PIRA will continue to function until there is a peace agreement and a government up north. That is fairly obvious.

Earthman wrote:

eh? I'm referring to your point not paisleys, the CIA was there with clinton too, by his side.

Yes and I didnt see clinton, who had the same intelligence etc as bush invade iraq either - the president does actually have control over the CIA.

Earthman wrote:

You say someone who has been on the opposite side of the IRA cant be trusted to make a judgement on them.
The Gardaí have as have the legislature of this country -so ergo by your logic we cant trust any of them with respect to the IRA, which is bad logic.

I am not saying you cannot trust them - I am saying they would be biased when it comes to the IRA - how is that bad logic? If two thugs are in front of you (you know both are thugs from seeing around) and one punches you - if you had to pick which one is worse - who would you choose? It would more than likely be the one that punched you.

Earthman wrote:

Do you indeed...,I see so you dont trust the elected politicians of the state? says a lot really, but you're entitled to that view, just dont expect too many people to share it.

well considering the number of people that vote against them I would say there are some others that dont trust some of them aswell. I'm not talking conspiracy or any of that **** - im just saying I wouldnt trust the likes of minister mcdoogle run a chip shop not alone the dept of justice.

Earthman wrote:

You used the telling of lies as a reason for not trusting someone-ergo if you have lied we cant trust you-hence the question have you ever lied.Basically I'm pointying out to you that the reasoning you offer doesnt hold water.

There is a difference in the severity of lies. I would consider lies that end up getting people killed and lies about whether you went out last night a little different in severity.

Earthman wrote:

IRA violence in this day and age is obsolete-even SF agree with me on that. I can safely say that a new IRA campaign if they don't immediately get what they want would result in outrage from the vast majority of people-yes I can safely say that, do you have anything that points otherwise?

And I totally agree with you that IRA violence in this day and age is obsolete. I believe a new IRA would result in outrage from the majority of irish people (I like the way you said "if they dont immediately get what they want")

Earthman wrote:

In this day and age? I wouldnt advocate burning down other peoples houses,I certainly would not.

Would you have a different opinion in a different day and age?

axer

axer wrote:

Yes and I didnt see clinton, who had the same intelligence etc as bush invade iraq either - the president does actually have control over the CIA.

Clinton invaded countries too without UN support, but thats for another thread.

I am not saying you cannot trust them - I am saying they would be biased when it comes to the IRA - how is that bad logic?

you would have to present an arguable case for this bias. Clearly Alderdice is the unionist there for their comfort.
The Met commissioner is legitimately there to represent the British govt, the Justice dept guy there for the Irish govt(and ironically the rest of us) etc thats the way these things are set up and fowl could be cried by any of them, including fowl of bias.

well considering the number of people that vote against them I would say there are some others that dont trust some of them aswell. I'm not talking conspiracy or any of that **** - im just saying I wouldnt trust the likes of minister mcdoogle run a chip shop not alone the dept of justice.

I'd be referring to the entire elected Dáil who voted on behalf of their electorate a motion of censure for the IRA recently.

There is a difference in the severity of lies. I would consider lies that end up getting people killed and lies about whether you went out last night a little different in severity.

You didnt make that part of your point clear earlier. So you are saying that you dont agree with the UK govts partiality because of the war in Iraq-is that it?
What excuse do you think anyone would have used to discount the impartiality of the likes of Blair (or Mo Mowlam) before all that business?
To be frank with you, I wouldnt be instancing the IRAQ war as grounds for delaying or otherwise having any impact on finding a settlement in the north, its a different matter entirely.
I'd put more importance on the fact that I'd be dealing with the elected British government and that I'd have to be dealing with them as they are the relevant elected goverment with jurisdiction as are the elected Irish government.

And I totally agree with you that IRA violence in this day and age is obsolete. I believe a new IRA would result in outrage from the majority of irish people (I like the way you said "if they dont immediately get what they want")

Glad to hear it

Would you have a different opinion in a different day and age?

Only slightly.
I am on record in some of the earlier threads in this forum as understanding of what brought about support for the IRA campaign in the early years of it but I'd never have supported it.
In my view , given where we are today, all those lives could have been saved by using the non violent route.

MT

axer wrote:

Of course the PIRA will continue to function until there is a peace agreement and a government up north. That is fairly obvious.

And that in a nut shell is the nub of it. It’s peace on their terms. Either they get to run the place or the IRA continues with its nefarious activities. If that’s not blackmail, I don’t know what is.

You see, that’s where the rest of us in the North – the 76% that don’t vote SF – beg to differ. There may well have been a time when we could stomach constructive ambiguity, but not now. I was once prepared to allow for a slow wind down of activities while SF representatives held their ministerial seats but not anymore. Hell would have to freeze over before I, and many others, would agree to SF taking up government positions first and then asking the good old ‘Ra to do the honourable thing. No, it’s a clear choice that the Republican Movement now finds itself presented with – give up the violence, brutality and abuse of human rights or forget about running the police, health and education. Unfortunately for the apologists, the last ten years would suggest that the party’s armed wing is far to found of thuggish tyranny and the ill gotten proceeds of crime to even contemplate surrendering their jam for the boredom of government. Better the BMW and the holiday home in Donegal than a penniless retirement while the likes of Mitchel McLaughlin gets to swan about with a ministerial brief case.

No, my view is that Gerry and the boys are in for the long haul on this one. Maintain control through fear using intimidation and brutality in Republican areas, keep the IRA primed thus causing unionists to rush to the extremism of Paisley and his bigoted ravings and then through deliberate self-exclusion from government play the tried and tested victimhood card for all it’s worth. Malachy O’Doherty recently did a superb piece on this strategy in the Belfast Telegraph. Sinn Fein know full well the destabilising effect of an active and armed IRA in the North. Unionists will refuse to go into government while the organisation’s active and this veto by proxy on the behalf of Sinn Fein allows them to paint the opposing side as exclusionist bigots, themselves as the peace loving oppressed and the likes of Fianna Fail as craven Unionist/British lickspittles. And therein lies their route to enough seats in the Dail to force the larger ‘Republican’ party to admit them to a governing coalition.

The North will still be an unstable and volatile basket case, the IRA will still be fully armed and active in a low level campaign of brutality – all the time expanding their activities southwards – and Sinn Fein will be sitting pretty in a coalition government. In short, with this bunch in power the only thing that ever functioned successfully as a democracy on this island – the Irish Republic – will be fúcked.

MT

Earthman wrote:

you would have to present an arguable case for this bias. Clearly Alderdice is the unionist there for their comfort.

I know you didn’t raise it originally, but I must again take issue with this point. Prior to his role as the assembly’s speaker Alderdice was leader of the Alliance Party. If he was a Unionist why not join either of the two unionist parties rather than a middle of the road group that’s forever telling us they’re not unionists.

I believe this description was slipped into this thread earlier by an apologist and is no doubt the next stage of the Sinn Fein propaganda campaign. Having attempted to discredit the IMC for being outside the terms of the GFA and having attacked it’s impartiality and the good standing of its members, it would be a real coup if the Republican Movement to claim the chairman was a unionist. They’re persecution complex would go into overload. To add to the securocrats, Free state bastards, perfidious Brits, Orange fúckers, southern partitionists, the Sindo and Indo, indeed the entire press, Michael McDowell and all the other anti-provo bogeymen, the propaganda coup de grace would be a Unionist controlled IMC.

The victim/saint psychosis the Republican Movement seems to permanently exhibit would be yet further bolstered.

I would have always regarded Lord Alderdice as a unionist, without reference to anything said on this thread.
Fact of the matter is,I've been shown no grounds for describing the others of being partial-ergo showing one of them as partial simply does not prove the machine as biased-ergo there must be an agenda behind those that view the body as being biased.

I'd put foward the conclusions that it comes up with being anathema to those that don't like the IMC as an agenda to bad mouth it.
Problem is , if I'm able to think that, then most neutral people will aswell and ignore it's bad mouthers untill they come up with something concrete.

I've also posited that screams of this has nothing to do with the GFA are immaterial aswell, as its a tool to process information for the governments , like any tool they can set up for any purpose and at any time.

A Dub in Glasgo

Baron Alderdice of Knock in the City of Belfast (what a load of kak that is!) is a Unionist. He supports the union of Britain and NI.

I believe he is aligned to the Liberal Democracts when in sits in the parasites chamber

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Baron Alderdice of Knock in the City of Belfast (what a load of kak that is!) is a Unionist. He supports the union of Britain and NI.

I believe he is aligned to the Liberal Democracts when in sits in the parasites chamber

Yes but there are Unionists and there are Unionists You've yet to demostrate that this person has a clear unmistakable bias aganist SF/IRA. Supporting the union of Britain and NI, is a point of view of the majority of the population of NI, many of these unionists want to work with republicans. You spit out the word "unionist" like a dirty word, you've not demonstrating that Baron Alderdice has a clear bias, or even a hardline unionist stance.

And the fact that he's a Lib Dem doesn't help your argument.

Seriously;

This thread has evolved into;

Inneudo and speculation about the political makeup of the IMC, but no concrete evidence of a bias.

And ah yeah so, what? Whats the big deal, (even if it's true, which we seemed to have forgotten a while ago) that the IRA are still recruiting and training, and arming.

MT

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Baron Alderdice of Knock in the City of Belfast (what a load of kak that is!) is a Unionist. He supports the union of Britain and NI.

Careful there, you’re in danger of letting the parity of esteem mask slip. Surely, a key aspect of the GFA was respect for traditions and opinions at odds to your own. Remember, Sinn Fein parrot this line more than most. Just as those that desire a united Ireland or even those in the Green party should have their opinions respected, so too must those that support and hold peerages. Or is parity of esteem another aspect of northern politics Republicans haven’t been entirely truthful about?

And as for him being a true unionist, I’d be highly sceptical. He may well adhere to the Alliance Party stance that they support whichever constitutional arrangement most benefits the people of NI. That might, in their opinion, be the status quo for now, however, their stance would change if a united Ireland became preferable. This is far removed from the thinking of what most understand Unionism to be. That is, support of the union no matter what. At most Alliance’s and presumably their former leader’s outlook might be described as conditional unionism. I think the Green party may have a similar stance. In sharp contrast to all this is the DUP and UUP which believe in the union come what may. Unlike the Alliance party they have a specifically pro-British ethos and a strong sectarian element. As with the constitutional position, Alderdice’s former party shares none of these.

Furthermore, as Sinn Fein supporters vehemently oppose the tag SF/IRA and all that it entails, you too should be careful about what names you bandy about. Those in glass houses…

MT

I’ve been searching for this for a while but came across it the other day. It’s the speech given by Prof. Liam Kennedy after the results for the West Belfast constituency were announced on May 5th. He stood in the constituency on a human rights platform in an attempt to highlight the brutality of the IRA and other paramilitaries in this part of Belfast and further afield.

Originally from Tipperary I believe, Kennedy has worked tirelessly for human rights over the years and has been nothing short of scathing in his condemnations of the IRA’s self-appointed role as community defender. He has always come across as a man who has a deep and genuine concern for the right of Northerners to be free from the jackboot of paramilitary oppression. Apparently, this speech seemed to cause so much embarrassment to the victorious candidate – Gerry Adams – that the Sinn Fein president walked out part way through.

Who knows, had Gerry stayed to listen to this champion of human rights he might have moved to halt the risibly feigned outrage from his colleagues over the IMC’s findings. Just compare Liam Kennedy’s dignified stand against Belfast’s henchmen with this week’s shrieks of indignation from Sinn Fein. I’m sure he feels nothing but sickened by their hypocrisy.

From Liam Kennedy:

"They never said what he had done wrong. They just dragged Eamon from the bed, threw him all the way down the stairs, lay him on his back and beat him with sticks embedded with huge nails while my parents pleaded with them to leave him alone because of his age. He only turned 14 in July."

This is the voice of Eamon's sister who dared to speak about the ordeal of her younger brother. Unusually she dared to breach the wall of silence that surrounds paramilitary repression in working class areas. For the republican and loyalist terror groups this was just another day in Northern Ireland just another "punishment" beating.

There is both joy and sorrow at City Hall today. I share in some of the celebration, in view of the wonderful consciousness-raising campaign run by the human rights activists. And I'm all for a bit of 'crack', to use that Ulster Scots phrase. But I'm also acutely aware of the terrible suffering that has
been imposed on communities, individuals and families in this society.

I think of the victims of the Omagh bomb atrocity, many of whom are here today. Michael Gallagher, Victor Barker and others have been wonderfully supportive of our human rights campaign. I take this occasion to appeal directly to Mr Adams to go to the Gardai and the PSNI to help bring justice to the Omagh families. I say this in the full knowledge that the provisional IRA trained the key terrorists involved in the Omagh massacre. The republican movement holds within itself vital information about the identities, networks and movements of the killers. So far, it has withheld that knowledge. It has failed the families.

I think also of the McCartney sisters, of the relatives of Andrew Kearney, of the McGinleys and Robinsons in Derry, of Thomas Boswell from the New Lodge, of the families of the disappeared – all of whom have suffered at the hands of the republican movement.

Equally, loyalist paramilitaries have visited great pain on the families of Raymond McCord, John Allen, Pat Finucane, and countless others. In recent years loyalists have been responsible for more intense repression within their own communities, outdoing the IRA in terms of punishment beatings and shootings.

I also have concerns about the Election itself. These strike at the very foundations of democracy itself. One movement in this election – Sinn Fein and the IRA – is awash with money, so much so it could afford to burn bank notes in recent times. No democratic party, no matter how large, can compete with a politico-criminal conspiracy that has virtually unlimited access to resources, through legal and illegal means. The word to people in the Irish Republic must be: this show will be appearing soon in a neighbourhood near you, if it hasn’t done so already.

Standing in these historic surroundings, I feel like Banquo’s ghost at the feast of the bearded warlord. Mr Adams was re-elected M.P. for Belfast West in 1997. Since then "punishment" attacks by republicans have actually worsened. You would have to have a heart of stone, and a glib tongue, to remain unmoved by the sufferings of your own constituents. Or perhaps, as Sean O’Casey once caustically remarked, no one can suffer enough for the republican project, least of all the innocent.

I worry also about a movement whose ultimate allegiance is not to the broad Irish democracy but to a secret army council, composed of seven men – it wd be men of course, though there may be the odd tree-hugging Druid in there among them. I only wish that the Sinn Fein leadership wd respect its own mandate: the mandate from the people, not the conspiratorial councils run by ethnic warriors from the North.

I wonder also about a movement which sees itself as the “defender” of the Catholic and nationalist people. One has only to pose the question - how many Catholics were murdered by loyalists before 1970 and how many have been murdered since 1970? - to appreciate how empty this claim is. Let me refresh your memories:

Ten Catholics died as a result of political violence in the 1960s. Since then more than 1200 Catholics have been slain, a third at the hands of republicans.

The same pattern is broadly true of Ulster’s self-styled loyal "defenders". What the paramilitaries have been successful in doing, however, is in exacting vengeance from the other side, in promoting deeper ethnic divisions, and in rendering meaningless the true republican ideal of the unity of "catholic, protestant, and dissenter". These malign consequences of paramilitarism were well illustrated during the election itself: Sinn Fein was unable to canvass in loyalist areas and loyalists wouldn’t dream of canvassing in republican areas. With our few resources, we made our presence felt in both communities.

We have had the long war. Here begins the long march of the democrats.

Let me conclude by congratulating Mr Adams, a representative of the IRA army council on his re-election as the MP for Belfast West.

Slugger O’Toole

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

Yes but there are Unionists and there are Unionists

So he is a unionist then (of some description)

You've yet to demostrate that this person has a clear unmistakable bias aganist SF/IRA.

I have yet to claim that John Alderdice has a clear unmistakable bias. I cannot demonstrate something which I have yet to claim.

You spit out the word "unionist" like a dirty word,

That is strange. How do you deduce that I am spitting out a word and that it is dirty?

you've not demonstrating that Baron Alderdice has a clear bias,

See above

or even a hardline unionist stance.

Ah - slight change in the description now

And the fact that he's a Lib Dem doesn't help your argument.

What? That he sits in a parasitic chamber?