Ian paisley - Durkan blotched with fascism.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

Oh come on mycroft, relax I was just trying to inject a little humour.

I've had funnier tumours........ Just quit with the shift key mid word, kay?

Well Martin McGuinness said the same things, is he a proven liar too??

Wow consistent denial and selective memory loss are traits of SF supports, Mc Guinness lies over IRA membership have been presented before.

I'll scoff at statements the Minister of Justice of senior police officers make if they are unproven and I don't respect their opinion, why? Well because thats my right as an Irish citizen to hold my own beliefs and values.

Sniff gosh how patriotic of you. I just find it ironic that someone how consistently presents the words of two liars as justification for his worldview to not feel the irony of his mocking of people taking the word of a respected police officer.

You have chosen to believe Hugh Orde that the IRA done the robbery, I prefer to wait for conivctions or at least proof, I mean if Orde had proof surely someone would have been arrested by now?

Once again for the people in the simple seats. Its a cross border investigation to expose the entirity of the IRA money laundering operation. It'll take years to get the case together, They knew Capone was guilty for years it took that long for them to build a case. C'mon Irish1, it took three months to make concrete arrests in Mc Cartney wondering why they've not been arrests in this is just very specious reasoning.

As for McDowell, well he said the Adams and co were on the IRA army council an illegal organisation but yet doesn't have an issue with them not been arrested, Bertie doesn't know who's on it!!

All we have here is opinions, I respect yours I just don't share it, so to get back on topic I honestly believe that if Paisley had signed a deal last december the IRA would now be without any weapons.

And why? And tell me, if the IRA are convicted of being involved in the robbery would you change your pov?

Villain

mycroft wrote:

I've had funnier tumours........ Just quit with the shift key mid word, kay?

kay

mycroft wrote:

Wow consistent denial and selective memory loss are traits of SF supports, Mc Guinness lies over IRA membership have been presented before.

Nope I don't think McGuinness ever lied about his membership infact during the bloddy sunday enquiry he outlined it in some detail.

mycroft wrote:

Sniff gosh how patriotic of you. I just find it ironic that someone how consistently presents the words of two liars as justification for his worldview to not feel the irony of his mocking of people taking the word of a respected police officer.

I don't mock anyone here, however your statemet in bold above could be seen as mocking, but it's ok I don't mind I'm used to it

mycroft wrote:

Once again for the people in the simple seats. Its a cross border investigation to expose the entirity of the IRA money laundering operation. It'll take years to get the case together, They knew Capone was guilty for years it took that long for them to build a case. C'mon Irish1, it took three months to make concrete arrests in Mc Cartney wondering why they've not been arrests in this is just very specious reasoning.

You know I was going to respond to that statement but the piece in bold just showed me you'd rather insult me than discuss the topic.

mycroft wrote:

And why? And tell me, if the IRA are convicted of being involved in the robbery would you change your pov?

I said

If it was proven that the IRA carried out this robbery and Adams and other SF members knew of it, it certainly would.

The piece in bold is the important part you left out there, if that was proven I would not respect Adams or McGuinness.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

kay


Nope I don't think McGuinness ever lied about his membership infact during the bloddy sunday enquiry he outlined it in some detail.

Sigh and the link re McGuinness's lying was already provided on a previous thread, back around the goldfish bowl eh Irish1?

I don't mock anyone here, however your statemet in bold above could be seen as mocking, but it's ok I don't mind I'm used to it

:rolleyes: An attempt at humour, cute. Just doesn't negate the thrust of the point you deride people who take the words of accountable police officer while you take the word of unaccountable proven liars, and deride people who take an opposing worldview of yours. It's more than a little laughable at this point.

You know I was going to respond to that statement but the piece in bold just showed me you'd rather insult me than discuss the topic.

Translation; "I can't defend my POV I'm going to weakly dismiss this and try and use the pretence of holding the higher ground"

I said

The piece in bold is the important part you left out there, if that was proven I would not respect Adams or McGuinness.

And once again you give them a degree of benefit of the doubt which wanders into the levels of someone clambering outside the Jackson courthouse claiming "he never had plastic surgery."

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Well Martin McGuinness said the same things, is he a proven liar too??

If he denied IRA leadership post Bloody sunday-yes.

Boggle

Its presented by SF supporters/IRA apologists on this board as canon that the IRA were about to disband were it not for Paisley's obstinance in Decemeber, I'm merely pointing out that the IRA's activities in decemember would tend to deflat that theory.

Yes but I am not an apologist - in fact I don't believe that any sod of turf is worth the life of a single child. What I am is a realist who is capable of looking at things objectively. And the objective side of me says that even when discussing "peace", you do not expect it and as such should not be left vulnerable. Of course it would be possible that they were planning to destroy their arms and just replenish with new stock with the money from the robbery but I believe that would kill any pretence that they may have been interested in peace.

And again what they claim they were about to disband runs aganist their robbery, what does a terrorist group about to disband (or claiming to disband) need with a massive influx of cash.

Not being funny but it could be a pension fund.

So now you're claiming they're a criminal gang. You're flip flopping, if they're a criminal gang, why would you believe their claim, as you do above;

Actually, I think that the IRA is a criminal group with (at best) very close ties to a political organisation in which case I'm not flip-flopping. Have I ever claimed they were not criminals?

I was furious with Paisley when he played this trick in december but the behaviour of the IRA in the aftermath and what they were planning while we were assured by SF they were on the cusp of going away, tends to suggest this isn't entirely his fault. Either way the suggestion that the collaspe of talks in december may have been Paisley's fault but in hindsight the IRA's commitment to decommisioning or disbandment seems like lip service at best.

Unfortunately, unless Mr. Paisley had a crystal ball then you have to believe he had other reasons to make photographic evidence so vital. But the crux of the issue is this: If the IRA genuinely destroy all their arms then what guns would they use to rob the bank? Now, saying they did rob the bank afterwards anyway - what would happen to SF's credibility? And as far as I can tell the IRA is now about gaining enough popularity for SF - once completed heaven help anyone who endangers the party.

The suggestion that Paisley will fade into obscurity ignores the fact that the "Honourable Rev" has been the elephant in the corner of Northern Ireland for the past 15 odd years, and now the elephant has the floor, because both sides have disenfranchised the middle ground.

Paisley isn't going anywhere, he's the unfortunate reality, what SF's indifference has sown, he has reaped, and the suggest that he will now toddle off to obscurity when his power has rarly been greater, is well, I'm sorry a little naive.

Paisleys politics have always been of the firebrand "get your hands off the north stuff". Were the IRA to disband, his place in the north would evaporate as people stopped caring about sectarian issues and started caring about political policies. As you said he has been there for a long time, but always in the same climate of sectarianism.

Why do you think Adams wants to appear the voice of reconciliation? 'Cos like him or love him, he's a smart man and is already planning for the future.

Sand wrote:

A)The only prejudice in my posts regarding SFIRA and more generally Northern Ireland is directed against scumbag, anti-democratic, crinimal terrorist filth.

Well placed then as it may be - to me anyone who lacks an ability to look objectively at a matter loses alot of credibility in an argument.

Its typcial of SFIRA thinking and thus laughable that you consider decomissioning a bad idea because you want to leave the option of going back to Omaghs,

Did I indicate that I thought decomissioning a bad idea? This is my point about having an already prejudiced opinion - sometimes it takes over from fact. You assume I'm an apologist - but I'm not.

Then with some twisted thinking you argue that if SFIRA disarmed and embraced democracy, people would not support them because they want a party that can bring them peace?

Actually, I stated that I thought if the IRA did a u turn that I SF's reputation would have been damaged - possibly beyond repair. Read it again please and see what I was actually saying.

mycroft

Boggle wrote:

Yes but I am not an apologist - in fact I don't believe that any sod of turf is worth the life of a single child. What I am is a realist who is capable of looking at things objectively. And the objective side of me says that even when discussing "peace", you do not expect it and as such should not be left vulnerable. Of course it would be possible that they were planning to destroy their arms and just replenish with new stock with the money from the robbery but I believe that would kill any pretence that they may have been interested in peace.

As I've pointed out the IRA have already being importing arms in the past 6 years.

Not being funny but it could be a pension fund.

Yes it could be, however we don't know, and the timing was woeful.

Actually, I think that the IRA is a criminal group with (at best) very close ties to a political organisation in which case I'm not flip-flopping. Have I ever claimed they were not criminals?

No but you're taking their word that they were about to disband, now you're calling them criminals? Do you trust honest criminals? Is their any money is a criminal gang disbanding?

Unfortunately, unless Mr. Paisley had a crystal ball then you have to believe he had other reasons to make photographic evidence so vital. But the crux of the issue is this: If the IRA genuinely destroy all their arms then what guns would they use to rob the bank? Now, saying they did rob the bank afterwards anyway - what would happen to SF's credibility? And as far as I can tell the IRA is now about gaining enough popularity for SF - once completed heaven help anyone who endangers the party.

As pointed out previously on this thread, SFs credibility didn't really suffer among it's core voters when they robbed the bank after the deal collasped, they did however alienate the moderate unionists and catholics.

Paisleys politics have always been of the firebrand "get your hands off the north stuff". Were the IRA to disband, his place in the north would evaporate as people stopped caring about sectarian issues and started caring about political policies. As you said he has been there for a long time, but always in the same climate of sectarianism.

Again thats hopelessly naive speculation, Paisley speaks to the basest most tribalistic elements in the north, and they listen to him. The disbandment of the IRA will not solve the north's problems or issues, one needs only to look at holy cross to see how a unionist mob can focus their rage on the most innocent because they felt threatened by catholic "inroads" into their commuity, the suggestion that Paisley will simply melt away once the IRA disband is dubious reasonings, and as long as unionists feel he supports their best interests he'll be around.

Why do you think Adams wants to appear the voice of reconciliation? 'Cos like him or love him, he's a smart man and is already planning for the future.
.

And its now a future that means he has to negoitate with Paisley at least till the next general election, furthermore there is no UUP moderate to mount a credible alternative.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

If he denied IRA leadership post Bloody sunday-yes.

Did he?? any links?

Villain

mycroft wrote:

Sigh and the link re McGuinness's lying was already provided on a previous thread, back around the goldfish bowl eh Irish1?

Can you repost that Link please?

mycroft wrote:

:rolleyes: An attempt at humour, cute. Just doesn't negate the thrust of the point you deride people who take the words of accountable police officer while you take the word of unaccountable proven liars, and deride people who take an opposing worldview of yours. It's more than a little laughable at this point.

I don't deride people, I respect everyones opinion.

mycroft wrote:

Translation; "I can't defend my POV I'm going to weakly dismiss this and try and use the pretence of holding the higher ground"

Well if you managed to discuss the issue without throwing in insults I might not have the higher ground .

BTW I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for arrests in the comming years for IRA money laundering, I mean the Minister for Justice says the men leading the organisation are elected MP's but the Gardai & PSNI let them walk the streets free, if you believe Mr McDowell don't you find that a little strange. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you believe Hugh Orde that the IRA carried out the robbery and you also believe McDowell that Adams and McGuinness are on the IRA army council so therfore in your and McDowell's eyes Adams and McGuinnes are the leaders of a group who robbed a bank but yet there have never been arrested in relation to the crime, does that not seem just a tad bit odd??

mycroft wrote:

And once again you give them a degree of benefit of the doubt which wanders into the levels of someone clambering outside the Jackson courthouse claiming "he never had plastic surgery."

Well you see the BIG difference there is you can prove he had plastic surgery, whereas all you have here is the same as me - an opinion.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

Can you repost that Link please?

It's on another thread on this forum, I just had to dig up links to back up some pretty basic facts for a Dub and FTA69 last week, I've neither to time or the inclination every time you start disbelieving everything that you disagree with despite the evidence to contray.

I don't deride people, I respect everyones opinion.

The milk of human kindest doth overflow.

Well if you managed to discuss the issue without throwing in insults I might not have the higher ground .

BTW I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for arrests in the comming years for IRA money laundering, I mean the Minister for Justice says the men leading the organisation are elected MP's but the Gardai & PSNI let them walk the streets free, if you believe Mr McDowell don't you find that a little strange. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you believe Hugh Orde that the IRA carried out the robbery and you also believe McDowell that Adams and McGuinness are on the IRA army council so therfore in your and McDowell's eyes Adams and McGuinnes are the leaders of a group who robbed a bank but yet there have never been arrested in relation to the crime, does that not seem just a tad bit odd??

And once again Oh FFS we've been through this before,

1. What you know and can prove in a court of law are two different things.

2. What demostrable good would it do for the peace process to chuck Adams and Mc Guinness behind bars, making martyrs of them both and bogging down the peace process and alienating the middle ground.

Invariably to make the peace process work a blind eye has had to be turned, and whenever this is pointed out to you, you shut up and then a week or two later come coming out with the same tired old mantra, which then gets refuted and then you shut up and then bring it up again a few weeks later? Change the record.

Well you see the BIG difference there is you can prove he had plastic surgery, whereas all you have here is the same as me - an opinion.

Really can you? He denies having anything other than minor surgery to correct a congenital defect. You can't prove it you just know it, like I said you tend to hold your beliefs in the face of overwhelming logic.......

P O'Neill

Why has this thread, originally entitled 'Ian paisley - Durkan blotched withe fascism.' turned into a Sinn Fein bashing thread? I think some people need to look more objectivley at the whole situation. Why do you think groups like the IRA were founded? It wasn't just a group of men who thought: 'Ah we'll go out and blow up a few people for the craic'. It was revived due to various sectarian abuses in the North and no-one, not even the Irish government, did anything above a polite phonecall or letter about it. Nationalists needed defenders and the IRA answered their call. Of course it's time for them to go now but berating republicans with names such as criminals and terrorist helps nothing.
It's very easy to criticise the republican movement from our comfortable homes here in the South but how do you know you would not have done the same given the extreme circumstances at the time?

mycroft

P O'Neill wrote:

Why has this thread, originally entitled 'Ian paisley - Durkan blotched withe fascism.' turned into a Sinn Fein bashing thread? I think some people need to look more objectivley at the whole situation. Why do you think groups like the IRA were founded? It wasn't just a group of men who thought: 'Ah we'll go out and blow up a few people for the craic'. It was revived due to various sectarian abuses in the North and no-one, not even the Irish government, did anything above a polite phonecall or letter about it. Nationalists needed defenders and the IRA answered their call. Of course it's time for them to go now but berating republicans with names such as criminals and terrorist helps nothing.
It's very easy to criticise the republican movement from our comfortable homes here in the South but how do you know you would not have done the same given the extreme circumstances at the time?

Sage words from Mr O'Neil sure the IRA are just the finnest bunch of lads to every stand up and fought honourably and far for the glory and honour of their people.

Blah blah blah, the truth about the murdering theiving thugs the IRA quickly desended into is well known and spare the actions and events of 30 years ago to justify the existance of your glorified criminals and thugs.

Mighty_Mouse

Once again for the people in the simple seats.

Nice! :rolleyes:

Even if the IRA were involved in the Northern Bank job, money laundering etc they have still only been on cease-fire.

I'm not sure they were involved but FFS the IRA is still an-active organisation (becoming less active by the day it would seem)

If you wish to judge their commitment to the peace process look at apologies, decommissioning, war is over statements and probably disbandment when the political environment allows so.

Ooops but now we wont get that. Once again the Brits **** themselves at the prospect of republicans delivering the impossible and arrest Sean Kelly. Whats the best way of making sure the IRA disband?

Thats it; start imprisoning prominent peace campaigners again. That will make sure disbandment is top priority within the ranks!!!

oscarBravo

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Once again the Brits **** themselves at the prospect of republicans delivering the impossible and arrest Sean Kelly.

Hm, let's see.

(a) Sean Kelly was arrested because the evil Brits want to thwart any possibility of progress in the peace process.

...or...

(b) Sean Kelly was arrested for a pattern of behaviour that was in breach of the terms of his early release for murder.

Yeah, your version makes much more sense...

Villain

mycroft wrote:

It's on another thread on this forum, I just had to dig up links to back up some pretty basic facts for a Dub and FTA69 last week, I've neither to time or the inclination every time you start disbelieving everything that you disagree with despite the evidence to contray.

Well if you want to use a link to support your opinion use it don't just talk about, I couldn't find the link.

mycroft wrote:

The milk of human kindest doth overflow.

Was directed at the people in the simple seats again

mycroft wrote:

And once again Oh FFS we've been through this before,

1. What you know and can prove in a court of law are two different things.

2. What demostrable good would it do for the peace process to chuck Adams and Mc Guinness behind bars, making martyrs of them both and bogging down the peace process and alienating the middle ground.

Invariably to make the peace process work a blind eye has had to be turned, and whenever this is pointed out to you, you shut up and then a week or two later come coming out with the same tired old mantra, which then gets refuted and then you shut up and then bring it up again a few weeks later? Change the record.

I'm going to take that to another thread as we have gone way off topic already

mycroft wrote:

Really can you? He denies having anything other than minor surgery to correct a congenital defect. You can't prove it you just know it, like I said you tend to hold your beliefs in the face of overwhelming logic.......

He admitted to having plastic surgey on his nose to improve his voice, so sorry your wrong there.

mycroft

oscarBravo wrote:

Hm, let's see.

(a) Sean Kelly was arrested because the evil Brits want to thwart any possibility of progress in the peace process.

...or...

(b) Sean Kelly was arrested for a pattern of behaviour that was in breach of the terms of his early release for murder.

Yeah, your version makes much more sense...

Sean Kelly was arrested for being the leader of arranged republican rioting in the Ardoyne, which attacked Unionist houses.

And what was the henious outrage that sparked the rioting? The rioting occured moments after Celtic lost to rangers.

Well if you want to use a link to support your opinion use it don't just talk about, I couldn't find the lin

No but I'm sick of having to prove and then reprove over and over again because some posters on this forum seem to have ADD.

I'm going to take that to another thread as we have gone way off topic already

Irish1's patented "adams and Mc Guinness are as pure as the driven snow" thread version 7.

:rolleyes:

He admitted to having plastic surgey on his nose to improve his voice, so sorry your wrong there.

You do understand that comestic surgery has nothing to do with vocal range right, but hey we're wandering waaayyyy off topic here.

Right mycroft-enough of the veiled insults.
I've read this entire thread now rather than the quick scan I gave it at CDG airport the other day.
Strangely I have got no reports on it which leads me to believe that users couldnt care less.
However :

2 week ban for repeatedly adding unnecessary digs at posters rather than at what they post.

Mighty_Mouse

Sean Kelly was arrested for being the leader of arranged republican rioting in the Ardoyne, which attacked Unionist houses.

fact/opinion/fiction ?

Yeah, your version makes much more sense...

Depends where your standing, I suppose.

Nice timing by the Brits, all the same.....

Mighty_Mouse

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

fact/opinion/fiction ?
Depends where your standing, I suppose.

Nice timing by the Brits, all the same.....

It would appear that he was caught red handed on film mighty_mouse.
No doubt the film will be presented in evidence in court.
It's very hard to argue with video footage...

Police stopped a car that Kelly was travelling in at Carlisle Circus in north Belfast early yesterday and arrested him. Kelly was pictured at a riot last month following Glasgow Celtic's defeat at Motherwell and the loss of the Scottish Premier League to rivals Rangers.

The 33-year-old IRA man, whose bomb killed nine Protestants as well as his fellow bomber Sean 'Bootsy' Begley, was caught on film leading a nationalist mob attacking loyalist homes at Twaddel Avenue, a sectarian interface in north Belfast, just minutes after the match ended. Unionist politicians demanded that Kelly be put back into jail.

Taken from here

In other news... this thread is all over the place topic wise guys.
We'll see where it goes from here and then perhaps if necessary I'll split the tangent into a separate thread.

Sand

fact/opinion/fiction ?

Peter Hain, everything SFIRA could have dreamed off in a Northern Secretary, is satisfied that the dossier he has been given proves Kelly is back to his old tricks - or more likely never stopped, and just no ones had the guts to take on SFIRA yet.

Kelly - whose main contribution to the freedom of Ireland was murdering 10 people ordering fish and chips - was apparently photographed involved in the rioting, but Hain has stressed that his re-arrest doesnt hinge on any one incident but a pattern of behaviour.

Kelly is provo scum, acting like provo scum, and finally the governments are starting to take away the carrot and use the stick to remind the provos why they should live up to the terms of the deal. We'll here whinging and moaning from SFIRA and veiled threats about murdering people if they dont get their way - usual stuff.

Either way - its stuff like this that constantly bolsters Paisleys position, and makes it impossible for any deal to be done with this generation I think. Paisleys latest benchmark is that hell only go into power with SFIRA if Dublin and London delist the IRA as an illegal force. Now with a complete moron like Ahern in power, anythings possible, but the sun will melt the stones before the UK delists the IRA as a terrorist organistion. And its a perfectly fair requirement - the governments cant ask him to go into power with a group they consider to be terrorists. Its an insult to him and the people of Northern Ireland.

Even if the IRA were involved in the Northern Bank job, money laundering etc they have still only been on cease-fire

So are SFIRA a valid military organisation engaged in actions to overthrow a hostile state, or are they simply terrorist scum with a crinimal empire?

Because they guaranteed a cessastion of *all* military activity.

Assuming their activities are justifiable as military neccessity under provo idealogy and not simply organised crime for lining their own pockets with pubs in Donegal and holiday homes in Portugal as justified by reality, then quite simply military activity covers *everything* done by or in the name of the so called IRA? So which is it?

Its this sort of "We said this, but we really meant that" sort of bull**** that means the agreement is dead. Who can sign up with SFIRA and be confident theyll actually carry out their side of the bargain? When most likely SFIRA have an interpretation that absolves them of all responsibilities and requirements?

With a bit of luck Kelly will soon be rooming with his old friends Adams and McGuinness.

murphaph

P O'Neill wrote:

Nationalists needed defenders and the IRA answered their call

Didn't the british army do that when direct rule was imposed? I remember catholics welcomed british troops with open arms in the early 70's, shortly before the IRA started shooting/blowing them up.

In any case, as has been pointed out, whether or not you believe the reasons for the PIRA forming, there was no need for them a long time ago but they're still here, still commiting murders and robberies.

Boggle

As I've pointed out the IRA have already being importing arms in the past 6 years.

This is getting like a broken record but I'll say it once more: So bloody what?? What can you infer from that? They had not yet disbanded so why would they all of a sudden stop buying weapons?

No but you're taking their word that they were about to disband, now you're calling them criminals? Do you trust honest criminals? Is their any money is a criminal gang disbanding?

Ranting.... Read my argument and criticise it - don't keep repeating this oneliner over and over again.

As pointed out previously on this thread, SFs credibility didn't really suffer among it's core voters when they robbed the bank after the deal collasped, they did however alienate the moderate unionists and catholics.

As was also pointed out on this thread: many people don't believe that the IRA had anything to do with the robbery. I don't know whether they did or didn't do it but I do not believe that it was such a difficult task that only the IRA could have done it. Lets face it - meself and a few of me mates could have organised it had we the inclination and a few guns.

Again thats hopelessly naive speculation, Paisley speaks to the basest most tribalistic elements in the north, and they listen to him. The disbandment of the IRA will not solve the north's problems or issues, one needs only to look at holy cross to see how a unionist mob can focus their rage on the most innocent because they felt threatened by catholic "inroads" into their commuity, the suggestion that Paisley will simply melt away once the IRA disband is dubious reasonings, and as long as unionists feel he supports their best interests he'll be around.

So now I'm naive.... Without an external enemy to rally and unite his support with you may find that "amateur hour" up north will soon come to a close and politicians with real policies, representing the community as a whole, will soon make light work of trimble and the like.

And its now a future that means he has to negoitate with Paisley at least till the next general election, furthermore there is no UUP moderate to mount a credible alternative.

Suits him to the ground. Adams has adopted a gentler tone and paisley is spitting fire. Basically he looks very reasonable when sitting beside the Reverend.

oscarBravo

Boggle wrote:

This is getting like a broken record but I'll say it once more: So bloody what?? What can you infer from that? They had not yet disbanded so why would they all of a sudden stop buying weapons?

Ill say it once more also: you can infer that they are not committed to exclusively peaceful means. The ongoing purchasing of arms is utterly inconsistent with the oft-repeated suggestion that the IRA were all set to disband late last year.

Mighty_Mouse

.<quote>The ongoing purchasing of arms is utterly inconsistent with the oft-repeated suggestion that the IRA were all set to disband late last year.</quote>

Why? Does cease-fire not mean "cease-fire". If the IRA were completely non-operational already then would that not equal disbandment?

The fact of the matter is the IRA are completely commited to peaceful means "at the moment". I've said on here before. It's all your ever gonna get.

Republicans in the north are asking for a right to pursue their goals politically and democratically. As in the 70's if you dont allow a segment of society that right, then voilence will erupt.

So what if the IRA disbands in the morning?
What happens in 10 years time if the north returns to the 70's circumstances (which I dont believe can ever happen) and kids who dont remember the living terror of voilence are frustrated by having no access to a political route? I think you know the answer to this one.

Its why IMO decommissioning, disbandment, apologies etc can only work to convince the unionists/brits etc that republicans are really really interested in finding an alternative to voilence now/for the foreseeable future/as long as right to do so exists etc

At this moment in time Im absolutely convinced that the IRA does not want to return to voilence and wont do so anytime soon. Thats why they are prepared to make statements such as we have officially disbanded or what ever. Ie. an addition to "the war is over".

The republican movement now has enough room to operate politically without black outs, internments, etc, All we are missing now is a NI government. That we can wait for.

Boggle

Ill say it once more also: you can infer that they are not committed to exclusively peaceful means. The ongoing purchasing of arms is utterly inconsistent with the oft-repeated suggestion that the IRA were all set to disband late last year.

If they were committted to exclusively peaceful means then they would have already destroyed their arms already. They are willing to commit to exclusively peaceful means at which stage the IRA will be disbanded - but up until then the return to violence will always be an possibility in their minds. Or is that not how a ceasefire works?

On another note: If and when they do disband, do people expect that all those experienced criminals will just give up their way of life and go get a job in the local supermarket? Personally, I would be worried that when they go they will leave behind the frameworks for several gangs who could be more dangerous than the IRA ever were.
(i.e. They do not have to answer to SF for damaging their PR image)

Boggle

Boggle wrote:

If they were committted to exclusively peaceful means then they would have already destroyed their arms already. They are willing to commit to exclusively peaceful means at which stage the IRA will be disbanded - but up until then the return to violence will always be an possibility in their minds. Or is that not how a ceasefire works?

The issue is whether or not those talking peace are genuine or not.
Rearming when one is supposed to be talking disarming would not be indicative of being genuine in talking peace.

*edit* thread closed

Anyone wishing to discuss something along the lines of the last couple of pages may open another thread with that subject as the actual thread topic.