IRA Decommissioning

Mighty_Mouse

Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams also referred to the need to give space to reflect. “A very senior unionist said to me a year or two ago that if the IRA stripped naked on the lawn of Stormont and decommissioned their weapons, and one by one committed hari kari, then people within unionism would not be convinced.”

If the institutions are not re-established EVERYONE should at last see unionists for what they are.

Poster's in here have always followed the BS line of take away the excuse's for them not to cooperate. It's the "stoop" SDLP course of action that has never worked.

The institutions should of been estblished years ago. Unionists have just kept moving the goal-posts. Even if they go into power it will always be negative. No ambition to build a lasting peaceful society.

But we'll see now

MrPudding

cal29 wrote:

So do you believe they are lying

No. I was simply pointing out what I thought this was stupid. The IRA were doing the decommissioning. Anyone witnessing this act had to be agreed and approved by them. So, therefore, no matter who was chosen they would not have been acceptable to Ian. He seems to be ojecting to the fact that the IRA aproved the witnesses.

MrP

Hagar

Presumably if the IRA invited Paisley to witness the de-commissioning his account couldn't be believed either because he was invited to witness it by the IRA.

Get off the roundabout Ian.

Vangelis

Paislet will never be satisfied unless he sees the arms destroyed in a pile right in front of his own eyes, I say. :rolleyes:

bonkey

You think that would satisfy him? He'd simply look at the pile, wait till its destroyed, and then say "and how do I know that was all of it", claim another set-up was in the air, and stomp off.

jc

murphaph

bonkey wrote:

You think that would satisfy him? He'd simply look at the pile, wait till its destroyed, and then say "and how do I know that was all of it", claim another set-up was in the air, and stomp off.

Exactly, there's simply no way of knowing exactly what SF/IRA had in it's arsenal. This is as good as it's gonna get. NI will just slide further down the toilet without some form of devolved government being restored because the civil servants in the NIO are not accountable for their decisions which are often quite bad. All this rubbish just illustrates still further why we 'need' NI like a hole in the head.

Illegal Alien

It's excellent that this has finaly happend, and now hopefully real progress can be made in N.I.

Unionisim will of course, as always, attempt to sabotage and cripple any attempts at progressing anything, and will at very least slow things as much as possible.

But I feel this action has cut their political arsenal shorter than it has ever been, and Dublin and London will quickly lose patience with them.

Hopefully a massive turning point in the N.I. political landscape, and certainly in the log run, a large step forward to the reunification of Ireland.

cal29

murphaph wrote:

Could you imagine what would happen if a majority of people voted for ireland to rejoin the union, Adams et al would be sick!

there is more chance of big Ian becoming a catholic

black_jack

bonkey wrote:

You think that would satisfy him? He'd simply look at the pile, wait till its destroyed, and then say "and how do I know that was all of it", claim another set-up was in the air, and stomp off.

jc

Paisley would be shouting and trying to wreck this if the IRA giftwrapped their weapons with a bow, and handed them to him, with a detailed set of IRA quartermasters invoices meticlously logged since 1965, wrapped in a white flag.

The trick is for the IRA to live up to their claims, not import any more weapons, not to tolerate violence by republican elements, and desist in any further fundraising and criminal activity, and watch as Paisley becomes less and less relevant.

Expecting everyone to just leap for joy at this annoucement just ignores over a decade of broken promises, stalled intiatives, and lies by both sides.

murphaph

Yup, and if SF really want to deliver the killer blow (politically speaking) they'll join the policing board!

It's going to some time, but notice the noises Hain is making re: introducing council tax and education 'reform' (ie, Norn Iron has to pay more towards its upkeep). These noises are quite deliberate and are there to speed up a devolved government.

agfa

Could you imagine what would happen if a majority of people voted for ireland to rejoin the union, Adams et al would be sick!

Another reason i despise adams and his party is that people would readily be pro partition and anti republican to spite him personally and thus leaving republicans who have absolutely nothing in common with adams or the provisionals (the constuitional nationalists and anti gfa republicans) tarred with the same brush.
i would like to think that people would have more sense than this but i suppose ive come to expect this sort of thing and havent you learned already that the provos thrive on statements like the one above.

The institutions should of been estblished years ago. Unionists have just kept moving the goal-posts. Even if they go into power it will always be negative. No ambition to build a lasting peaceful society

Paisley has achieved more than any politician in irish history because he is at a stage in his political career where he cant lose.

For example if he does nothing he wins, because agreeing to nothing maintains the union with britain and if he does go into government with the provisionals then the union is copper fastened so i doubt whether he gives a damn about international opinion.

i personally dont support decommissioning because it is betrayal to all the volunteers we've lost and everything we've suffered for but there's nothing that can be done now except to defeat the provisionals politically and peacefully and achieve the united ireland.

murphaph

......and here was me thinkin' you were just a keen amateur photographer, a fan of 35mm you might say. No such luck-you're a fan of the 9mm variety, just what we need :rolleyes:

thrpoint

oscarBravo wrote:

"Will no-one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

i m a catholic and respect the big man and his principles he should have a right to his opinions and he is not the only barrier to irish unity

Kilsally

I think alot of people take very shallow impressions of Ian Paisley from media sound bites rather than actually reading exactly what he says and the context in which he says it.

If you merely look at the sound bites you will of course come away with the impression that he rejected the act of decommissioning when in fact that is NOT the case. For instance read this part article:-

Transparent? That's The Lie Of The Century
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/story/22888

By Stephen Dempster Political Correspondent

Tuesday 27th September 2005
The British and Irish governments have broken their promise that decommissioning would be " transparent and verifiable", DUP leader Ian paisley said last night. The disarmament process had been shrouded in a veil of secrecy, he said.
Unionists could not see nor judge for themselves the extent of decommissioning and whether or not it was significant. He claimed that London and Dublin had colluded in a cover-up with the IRA. Mr Paisley indicated that yesterday was a big step forward when he told reporters that he now accepted that IRA weapons had been put beyond use. But he added: "The fact remains that the promise made by the Prime Minister, that decommissioning must be transparent and verifiable and must satisfy everyone, was broken. "There were no photographs, no detailed inventory and no detail of the destruction of these arms. "To describe today's act as being transparent would be the falsehood of the century. "The people of Ulster are not going to be forced by IRA/Sinn Fein or by the two governments along the path of deceitfulness and treachery."

His deputy, Peter Robinson, said: "This was a more substantial event than all the others put together. "But, while we accept there was a significant number of weapons put beyond use, we are still to be told how they were put beyond use and still to be convinced that they will never be used again."
Unionists were left "underwhelmed" by General John de Chastelain's report, the role of independent witnesses - the Rev Harold Good and the Rev Alex Reid - and the IRA statement that decommissioning was complete. Mr Good and Fr Reid said that, "beyond any shadow of a doubt, the arms of the IRA have now been decommissioned".

---

The whole point of decommissioning at least in my eyes was as a trust building, confidence building excercise which has failed on a number of counts, firstly the protracted period over which it has occurred when it should have been completed by the end of the year 2000 (including Loyalists), the rather backstabbing nature in which David Trimble was treated on the three occassion he jumped first, for which he swung by his neck and also the total disregards for Unionist concerns not only on transparency but also on not appointing the Rev McCaughey the former Presbyterian moderator, anti-agreement unionist put forward by the DUP as a prospective witness for decommissioning, the latter perhaps being a complete deliberate snub perhaps and perhaps intedned to sow distrust and indeed garner the expected reaction from Unionists rather than having a genuine and substantial effect within the Unionisty community which it could have done.

murphaph

Welcome to boards Kilsally mate, good to see you here putting your point of view forward!

supersheep

The thing is, though, decommissioning actually will be transparent. The amount of weapons destroyed, how they were destroyed, and so on (although probably not the locations of destruction) will be revealed to the world when ALL decommissioning is finished. So, not only are loyalists the obstacle politically, but "militarily" too (are the INLA even part of the decommissioning thing?), and they are also the cause of their new objection to power-sharing: that it wasn't transparent. It will be transparent as soon as there are no loyalist paramilitaries.

Kilsally

Yeah but the thing is thwy have no incentive to do so. The PUP is down to one measly MLA and one or is it two councillors. Unles there is a big political swing to this party then the likes of the UVF have no incentive whatsoever to decommission.....unless some sort of non-political strategy can be brought about to invovle these folk somehow.

Vangelis

Know what? When I saw Paisley for the first time, I thought: "He is so full of hatred!" And that is his problem. He has this in-grown hatred. I hate to say this, but he is old though and hopefully his health will decline rapidly and he will die.

Wex1

Paisley is just paisley, you shouldn't wish death on the man. He's just still at his Ulster says no thing that he's been doing for all of my life. D'you think he's gonna turn around now? But at the end of the day he's a voice for someone, just like SF are a voice for someone. Let him blow - he's on a looser this time

Kilsally

There is hatred in everyone, it is the sinful nature of man, however I would say the hatred you perceive is actually fundametalism rather than hatred. If you care to take the time to listen he can be heard at www.sermonaudio.com . He certainly does not mince his words but that is not hatred. He preaches what he believes and makes no bones about it but he nearly always tells people to go home and pray and love thy neighbour no matter who they are......the media seem to ignore that bit.

Catholic school principal praises Paisley

THE principal of a Catholic primary school which was attacked by loyalist petrol bombers has spoken of the support he received from DUP leader Ian Paisley.

Martin Kearney, principal of St Mary's primary school in Harryville, Ballymena, said the DUP leader visited the school on Monday and offered his support.

Two weeks ago the school was targeted by petrol bombers who threw five devices into the school library and canteen causing serious damage to the library.

Mr Kearney said at the time the school had been attacked simply because it was a Catholic school.

On Monday, Mr Paisley was shown around the school and was introduced to the teaching staff by Mr Kearney.

Wex1

I think you're right. I have views on the whole NI thing that are fairly extreme, but i don't hate.
My parents met Paisley in belfast in the 60's and my dad (staunch cath) said he was a real gentleman, even though he totally abhored his media limelight statements.

I don't know about the love thy neighbour thing though.... Does he live near Gerry Adams?????

supersheep

I have no problem with Paisley's "Ulster says No"-type comments, other than that he claims to speak for me, the other bits of Ulster that already said yes, and the bits that would like to say yes. That's just a minor gripe, and I know he's talking about his community, who don't want to be part of Ireland. I don't have a problem with his total distrust of everything Irish, especially SF and the IRA - I don't particularly trust them myself, and I can see why he wouldn't either.
What I do have a problem with is his constant anti-Catholic and anti-Irish statements. The man often comes across as a bigot and a b*stard. And if he's grandstanding and doesn't believe his words, then it's nearly as bad, because they're things he is just saying to get votes and support - from people who do believe them.
And, like Hagar said, I don't want the guy to die. I'd like him to live until reunification... I wonder if it is possible for someone's splen to explode, cos I'd say that'd happen... Maybe that'd be the hell he'd go to - a unified Ireland! Hehe.

Vangelis

I have read a bunch of Paisley's essays online and to me.. it seems like the only thing he does is hate Catholics and Catholicism. He is in conflict with his brothers-in-faith. And he never tires from arguing that Catholicism is bad. To Paisley: Concentrate on your own faith and stop JUDGING others. How can he preach that one should love one's enemies and pray for them, and not act upon his own words! (I'm not a Catholic myself, I don't belong to any church, but I am a Christian.)

bonkey

Kilsally wrote:

I think alot of people take very shallow impressions of Ian Paisley from media sound bites rather than actually reading exactly what he says and the context in which he says it.

Where as you seem to be defending him by taking his comments and ignoring the context of the situation they apply to.

The British and Irish governments have broken their promise that decommissioning would be " transparent and verifiable", DUP leader Ian paisley said last night. The disarmament process had been shrouded in a veil of secrecy, he said.

What? You mean they misled Paisley and actually misinformed him as to what hte disarmament process would involve? That when he had his chance to be involved in the negotiations as to what would happen, he was told something other than what the rest were?

If not, then what possible grounds does Mr. Paisley have to complain that what was agreed upon was carried out? Oh - I know. The grounds that he objected to the entire process from the start and refused to ever sign on board to it. That was it, wasn't it.

Not only that, but as has been pointed out, the decomissioning process isn't over. Only the IRA have decomisssioned, and until everyone else has as well, the information is not supposed to be released.

Unionists could not see nor judge for themselves the extent of decommissioning

Unionists had a chance to agree on people they could trust ot do this overseeing. THats more than the public gets in any system. We - the public - still end up with people saying "trust us, its all true", just as the politicians do. The difference is that the politicians got to choose who were the right people.

Now the (predictable) response has been "but we didn't see it for ourselves, and we don't trust the word of those people we selected as trustworthy for this purpose

He claimed that London and Dublin had colluded in a cover-up with the IRA.

For a man who is stomping about making noises about verifiability, I assume he has concrete proof of this that he's going to present to the world, and not just ask us to trust him. As soon as he produces proof that meets his own standards of verifiability, I'll put some credence behind these claims. Until then, its just more denialism.

Mr Paisley indicated that yesterday was a big step forward when he told reporters that he now accepted that IRA weapons had been put beyond use.

Why is this the bit where we don't get to see what Paisley said, but have to rely on some somewhat-supportive writer interpreting it for us? WHy didn't we get that about the quotes that the author is compaining were taken out of conext? Hell, why not just give us the entire section of what he said, so we can see the context for ourselves?

jc