Ian paisley - Durkan blotched with fascism.

jank

Meanwhile, Mr Paisley has also attacked SDLP leader Mark Durkan as "an apologist for terrorism who has mixed with Sinn Fein for so long that he is blotched with fascism".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4574519.stm

Just saw this a while ago. Makes you wonder what Paisley's agenda is. Sure he is more then happy with the status quo where he can do what he wants and says what he wants, but its the green parties that get all the blame......interesting.

murphaph

jank wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4574519.stm

Just saw this a while ago. Makes you wonder what Paisley's agenda is. Sure he is more then happy with the status quo where he can do what he wants and says what he wants, but its the green parties that get all the blame......interesting.

I think Paisley's a bit mad. I kind of feel sorry for him, embarrassed even. I imagine the next generation including his son are pretty much waiting in the wings to do business. All that has to happen is SF/IRA get rid of their guns and actually give up criminal behaviour. Can't say I'm too optimistic about that. Poor Mark Durkan and the rest of the SDLP-a proper political party based on the struggle for northern catholics to win equality in the bad old days before 1 man 1 vote.

secret_squirrel

murphaph wrote:

I imagine the next generation including his son are pretty much waiting in the wings to do business.

May be completely wrong here but I had the impression that Paisley Jr. was a chip off of the old mad block?

Sinn Fein for so long that he is blotched with fascism

Sinn Fein as fascists? The mind boggles!

mike65

Some of us here might agree with that but not that Durkan is tinged with it. Paisleys always looking for a headline.

Mike.

Sand

Just saw this a while ago. Makes you wonder what Paisley's agenda is

Theres little cause to wonder. His agenda, affirmed by the way its been backed electorally, is to never ever allow SFIRA terrorists to enter the government of Northern Ireland - the December fiasco when SFIRA pulled out after a clause calling for an end to criminality was inserted has only confirmed that strategy.

I imagine the next generation including his son are pretty much waiting in the wings to do business.

Theres no indication of that, and there no indication Unionist voters will support any "deals" with SFIRA. The DUPs stated strategy, failing persuading the SDLP to share power, is to make direct rule more accountable. The concept of their strategy if SFIRA embrace constitutional politics is given as much thought as their strategy for their policies in a United Ireland.

All that has to happen is SF/IRA get rid of their guns and actually give up criminal behaviour. Can't say I'm too optimistic about that.

Ah cmon now. SFIRA are in deep discussions about Adams call to disband the IRA branch of the organisation. Im sure theyll get back to us , ooooh round about the next time elections are held, with an update on how talks are progressing.

jank

Absolutly ****ing unbelieveable

After 3 posts a thread about the old fashioned ways of Ian Paisley as gotten into a boards style Sinn Fein bashing exercise......Its clear that some here have a agenda, fox news style imo.

murphaph

jank wrote:

Absolutly ****ing unbelieveable

After 3 posts a thread about the old fashioned ways of Ian Paisley as gotten into a boards style Sinn Fein bashing exercise......Its clear that some here have a agenda, fox news style imo.

It's because no matter how SF/IRA supporters try to square a circle they can't get away from the fact that the IRA still holds a heap of weaponry and still engages in criminal activity. That's the nub of the issue in Northern Ireland. Paisley's nuts, what's new?

Sand

Absolutly ****ing unbelieveable

After 3 posts a thread about the old fashioned ways of Ian Paisley as gotten into a boards style Sinn Fein bashing exercise......Its clear that some here have a agenda, fox news style imo.

The topic is Paisley bashing Durkan for lying down with SFIRA dogs and getting up with fleas and Paisleys agenda. The topic is obviously going to include discussion on whether Paisley has a point, and what his thoughts are on SFIRA.

Unless of course the thread is purely about a good old Paisley bash with no discussion required or welcomed - in which case its yourself that has the agenda, an agenda that would be better welcomed on the IRBB. Outside of there the provo line of thought isnt going to go unchallenged. Get over it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Paisley is just doing what he has done for the last 4 decades... impeding progress. Nothing new there. Paisley and his merry band are not adverse to siding with terrorists.. as long as they are his terrorists!

flogen

Paisley is doing what got him into the position he's in now, publically stating his mistrust for Nationalists and Republicans. When the UUP couldn't deliver on a policy of co-operation, he stepped in and gave tired Unionists what they wanted, someone who wasn't going to take any crap from Republicans. As long as the IRA have weapons and are engaged in criminal activity he can continue to bad-mouth them, gain support from it and will always come out on top. Anything he does wrong is nothing compared of having a private army.
Of course, if they were clever enough to call his bluff that could all change, but they're not.
While I hate Paisley, I have to say that any progress to be made is not his problem at the moment, it's all on SF. I don't think it's unreasonable to refuse to share power with a party that has a private and illegal army, and yet I don't think going ahead without that party will work. You can say what you want about the internal debate at IRA HQ, but until they actually do something then the stall is no-one elses fault but their own.

dahamsta

I feel that if anyone is qualified to lecture on agendas, it's Sand.

Villain

I had a long post written, but it would probably just ensure the thread turned into a bash SF thread so I think I'll leave it out.

But one point to note is that Paisley rejects the GFA that the majority of people on this ISLAND supported, it's about time he stopped calling people names and actually worked to get a deal done.

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

it's about time he stopped calling people names and actually worked to get a deal done.

Getting a deal done requires having people on both sides who are willing and to deal and who are acceptable to deal with.

Paisley is pointing out the flaws in the stance of the other side. As pointed out, he mightn't have a particularly higher moral ground to do so from, but is most definitely on one no lower.

As per usual, we can expect both sides to point out how unacceptable the other is and how it must reform before progress is made.

murphaph

irish1 wrote:

I had a long post written, but it would probably just ensure the thread turned into a bash SF thread so I think I'll leave it out.

But one point to note is that Paisley rejects the GFA that the majority of people on this ISLAND supported, it's about time he stopped calling people names and actually worked to get a deal done.

I've never liked Paisley or any of the DUP to be honest, they're all really creepy no? but what's he to do? I wouldn't stand in the same room as Adams so he's done more than me and I'm living in the south and baptised catholic! SF/IRA are the people who need to move. SF are the only party of any signifigance with a private army and that army just has to wind up. I think that army have long been a bunch of 'regular' criminals and have as much intention of giving up criminality as the Westies here in Dublin. So SF have to start distancing themselves from the IRA and stop telling people to report crimes against them to 'trusted sources' but to the PSNI, the legal upholders of law and order in NI. They have to condemn every criminal act they commit and at a minimum, like all the other parties up north, down south and in Britain!

Running Bing

Am I understanding these posts correctly? people are actualy defending Ian Paisley? No matter how much you hate sinn fein/IRA you cannot deny that the reverand Ian paisley is an absolute biggot, a man full of hatred for anything Irish. Have people not seen him give interviews on prime time he treats every Irish man and woman as his enemy including the presenters and interviewers.

Does anyone here seriously believe that if the IRA was to disband fully tomorrow Ian paisley would be happy to talk with sinn fein? dont make me laugh.And his son is just as bad.

Some people on this board seem to have interest in nothing accept bad mouthing sinn fein/IRA. Their not the only ones with dirty hands in northern Ireland, not by a long shot.

Victor

secret_squirrel wrote:

May be completely wrong here but I had the impression that Paisley Jr. was a chip off of the old mad block?

Jr. is more "fire" than "fire and brimstone"

county

ian paisley represents the marjority of unionists in the north would you say the marjority of unionist are biggits?

murphaph

Babybing wrote:

Am I understanding these posts correctly? people are actualy defending Ian Paisley? No matter how much you hate sinn fein/IRA you cannot deny that the reverand Ian paisley is an absolute biggot, a man full of hatred for anything Irish. Have people not seen him give interviews on prime time he treats every Irish man and woman as his enemy including the presenters and interviewers.

But I bet he's never shot anyone. Like I said, I personally find him quite abrasive, but at least he has a bit of character.

Babybing wrote:

Does anyone here seriously believe that if the IRA was to disband fully tomorrow Ian paisley would be happy to talk with sinn fein? dont make me laugh.And his son is just as bad.

Only one way to find out, only one way to find out.

Babybing wrote:

Their not the only ones with dirty hands in northern Ireland, not by a long shot.

True.

murphaph

county wrote:

ian paisley represents the marjority of unionists in the north would you say the marjority of unionist are biggits?

No, just like I wouldn't say the majority of nationalists are in the IRA like Adams.

A Dub in Glasgo

county wrote:

ian paisley represents the marjority of unionists in the north would you say the marjority of unionist are biggits?

There will be some who will say yes and they will say this based on the same logic as those who call SF voters scum/terrorists/[insert whatever petty and juvenile description here].

On the other hand, it is absurd to state that the majority of Unionists are bigots because they voted for a bigot. People vote for all sorts of reasons and there will be a proportion who did vote because they agree with the bigotry of the DUP but that cannot be quantified.

Villain

murphaph wrote:

But I bet he's never shot anyone.

Are you comparing him to someone there and if so who?

As for the IRA and SF having to make the move, I agree 100% that the IRA has to seize to exist. But I also remember what Paisley said before the deal broke down before xmas, i.e. his sackcloth and ashes speech. If Paisley hadn't demanded those photographs we could be in avery different situation right now. Both sides have to move and as I said say what you like about SF but they support the GFA, Paisley doesn't.

county

i did not state unionists were biggits i only posed the question!

murphaph

irish1 wrote:

Are you comparing him to someone there and if so who?

Various senior members of SF.

irish1 wrote:

say what you like about SF but they support the GFA, Paisley doesn't.

SF/IRA are still robbing banks and murdering people. That's showing great support for it alright. Actions speak louder than rhetoric.

county

the fact remains that decommissioning is surrender to the ira,the british will always prevail and the ira know that

axer

murphaph wrote:

But I bet he's never shot anyone.

He may not have shot anyone but his biggoted speeches about catholics in Northern Ireland have caused many a riot which ended in many catholic houses getting burned to cinders and catholics murdered.

I think the problem is that Ian Paisley doesn't want to be the one that decides to go into government with Sinn Fein. If he goes into power with Sinn Fein (even with IRA disbanded), he's afraid his party may lose support.
I wouldn't call him a character, he's much too evil for that. I think he knows exactly what he is doing saying what he says.
I don't think its Sinn Fein's turn to make a move, it's the IRA's. Sinn Fein have issued their stance. When the IRA respond agreeing to disband and actually disband - then the ball is in the DUP's court. The only problem is I think the ball will remain in their court for a long long time until their voter's get sick of them and vote for the UUP - and alas there will be progress.

murphaph

county wrote:

the fact remains that decommissioning is surrender to the ira,the british will always prevail and the ira know that

It's not about anyone prevailing. It's about everyone living in peace with each other like normal societies.

murphaph

axer wrote:

I don't think its Sinn Fein's turn to make a move, it's the IRA's.

Same difference. That charade of Adams' asking the IRA to disband was just that, a charade. He'd already convened a meeting of the army council and they'd all agreed on that announcement beforehand. All carefully choreographed but fooling nobody.

Sand

Am I understanding these posts correctly? people are actualy defending Ian Paisley? No matter how much you hate sinn fein/IRA you cannot deny that the reverand Ian paisley is an absolute biggot, a man full of hatred for anything Irish. Have people not seen him give interviews on prime time he treats every Irish man and woman as his enemy including the presenters and interviewers.

And that should demonstrate just how unacceptable the SFIRA attitude has been. The fact that people are going Paisley has a point. 10 years ago Paisley was lunatic fringe nut. Now hes the seeming voice of reason when it comes to SFIRA. Whose fault is that? Ours or Adams and Co?

Are you comparing him to someone there and if so who?

Well, theres simply so many to choose from amongst the SFIRA leadership.

If Paisley hadn't demanded those photographs we could be in avery different situation right now. Both sides have to move and as I said say what you like about SF but they support the GFA, Paisley doesn't.

No we wouldnt Irish1. Even if the bank robbery hadnt occured - and it probably would have - McCartney would still have been murdered and SFIRA would still have sabotaged and intimidated the murder inquiry. And if you think Paisley wouldnt sieze on that as an exscuse to jump ship, you simply dont give Paisley enough credit for not being Trimble.

And as for SFIRAs support, as someone said already, its great in theory but doesnt amount to much in practise.

Villain

murphaph wrote:

Same difference. That charade of Adams' asking the IRA to disband was just that, a charade. He'd already convened a meeting of the army council and they'd all agreed on that announcement beforehand. All carefully choreographed but fooling nobody.

I take it thats your opinion, coz if your presenting that as fact I would love to see the proof.

So sand you think that if Paisley had agreed to allowing decommisioning be observed by a member of the Protestant church and the IRA ahd fully deccomisoned we wouldn't be in a different situation

murphaph

irish1 wrote:

I take it thats your opinion, coz if your presenting that as fact I would love to see the proof.

Yeah it's my fervent conviction. You think P. O'neill (aka G. O'Adams) didn't know all about the call that was to come from SF? Don't you think they'd be a bit pi$$ed off at not being consulted in private first?

county

there is no such thing as a protestant church,there are different denominations,such a catholic opinion