N.I - who's to blame 4 crisis

Sparks

ok then, following that logic then, the following are criminals for breaking the law of their recognised governments...
Ghadi, Mandela, Martin Luther King, Padraig Pearse and his 1916 comrades (not to mention 1798 etc), George Washington etc etc etc.

That's a rather disingenous argument, mainly because of your choice of people. Ghandi and King were strong proponents of civil disobedience and non-violent protest. I've yet to see the IRA commit to non-violent civil disobedience, yet it was proven to work.

Pearse&co were terrorists, by our modern definition, and there is a fair argument that their actions were not as morally pure as we were taught in school. After all, Parnell damn near achieved what they wanted without causing a war (though how the UDA would have reacted had the act gone through prior to WW1 is a different story); and de Velera managed to go from the Free State to the Republic without needing a second war with the UK.

So frankly, defending the actions of violent men with the argument that violence is required is somewhat flawed. And arguing that their actions are justified by the conviction of their beliefs is insanity - you merely need look at european history for the past sixty years to verify that.

I must confess ignorance on one point - when was the last referendum held on the political status of the six counties in the six counties?

PH01

JesusHChrist, how long is this going to go on?
The IRA\Sinn Fein won't say that the WAR is over and give up the armed struggle.
The Unionists won't share power because they don't trust the republicans never mind what they say or do.

Are these people taking the pìss?! I mean just get on with it - get the job done and stop playing silly-buggers

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The last 'security crackdown' resulted in the Catholic population of West Belfast turning vehemently anti-British and IRA membership shot up.

Then do it right this time. If people are breaking the law there is no other option but to bring the force of the law to bear on them.

Also, Biffa, please explain how you attribute this to the UUP 'trying to use politics to solve a policing issue' because the UUP have no control over the police and certainly nor should they.

The policing issue is the continued lawbreaking by paramilitaries in terms of membership of illegal organisations and possession of illegal armaments. Therefore this issue should be resolved by the police. What the UUP is trying to do is to bring political pressure to bear on the political representatives of these people in order to force them to desist from these illegal activities. This is not how a well-ordered society should work and it is also contrary to the GFA.

Sparks

Biff,

Then do it right this time. If people are breaking the law there is no other option but to bring the force of the law to bear on them.

It's not working in Israel/Palestine, why would it work here?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

crackdown can work

I think the moriarty tribunal is showing how "within the law" the protaganists were. Frankly, if that's what a crackdown requires, I'll take something else please. Down that road lies the Patriot Acts, and the restriction of the FOI Act.... ah. Hmm. I see McAleese just signed the restriction into law today. Bugger.

Cork

I think the IRA weapons are being decommissioned. Some were destroyed and some aer rotting in bunkers.

I think that the Good Friday Agreement is a compromise. Unionists probably want some re-assurance. Why not give it to them & get on with power sharing?

I think that Irish Republicisim does not need to hold on these arms. I think that - comprosise with regard to everybodys various rights is the key up there. There needs to be an accepted police force and the militry pressence needs to be scaled back.


Yet, this is all doable.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

dave,
No, but I'm saying it's a bit rich to assume that they're acting within the law without proof. Which is perhaps the biggest fallout from Moriarty - it's no longer valid to accept a garda's statement as having any more weight than that of anyone else anymore.

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
I've yet to see the IRA commit to non-violent civil disobedience, yet it was proven to work.

However, such behaviour was common in republican and wider nationalist circles, in part supported / directed / enforced by the IRA.

Originally posted by Sparks
Pearse&co were terrorists, by our modern definition, and there is a fair argument that their actions were not as morally pure as we were taught in school.

I'm not sure I would agree he was a terrorist per se - they wore uniforms, had a clear chain of command and sought primarily to engage the British Army. However, I seriously disagree with his desire to cause major casualties, thereby gaining the support of the people (which worked).

Originally posted by Sparks
After all, Parnell damn near achieved what they wanted without causing a war (though how the UDA would have reacted had the act gone through prior to WW1 is a different story)

This is possibly a good example of where violence is permissible, despite repeated attempts, independence could not be gained democratically (because of the House of Lords veto, abolished in 1912) despite a majority wanting it. The dragged out nature of WWI proved a point that the Empire was taking Ireland places it didn't want to be (a lot more Irish were killed in France and Belgium than in Ireland in 1914-1923).

Originally posted by Sparks
and de Velera managed to go from the Free State to the Republic without needing a second war with the UK.

This change was gradual and not violent and possibly had more to do with the abdication debacle in the UK. The gathering storm clouds in Europe were probably also a factor.