So have I missed something, what was achieved today?

NIMAN

I listened to reports on the radio tonight saying that it was a momentus day for the North, after 11 weeks of intensive talks, and that it would really shape the country for the future.

I have just done some reading on different websites and can't actually see what was achieved today, other than them getting £2bn promised and a few commissions being set up to deal with the issues they were having.

Surely setting up more comissions to do more talking isn't progress in NI? Sure they have been talking for years and made little or no progress, hence the reason they are at an impasse now. More commissions will only bring more arguments next year, will they not?

From where I am, I think nothing was achieved today to make NI a better place or move it forward one bit. Nothing but spin imho.

yosser hughes

They got their cash. That's it. That sums up Irish politics,North and South. Hopefully they stay with the U.K.

NIMAN

Yeah thats all I could see in it, nothing else. 11 weeks of talking for that?

Funny how it was all wrapped up today with a bit of spin, just in time for them all to get a break and enjoy Xmas. I'm sure they didn't want their Xmas holidays spoiled by having to deal with it.

NIMAN

Just did a little more reading into it here on the BBC website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-30589804

and lot of financial chat, but re: flags, parades and the past the main points are


A Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition will be established by June 2015 as the basis for further addressing these issues, to report within 18 months of its being established
Powers to take responsibility for parades and related protests should, in principle, be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly
The executive will, by 2016, establish an Oral History Archive to provide a central place for people from all backgrounds to share experiences related to the Troubles
A new independent body, the Historical Investigations Unit (HIU), will be established to take forward investigations into outstanding Troubles-related deaths
A new body, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval (ICIR), will be established to enable people to seek and privately receive information about the (Troubles-related) deaths of their next of kin. The information will be inadmissible in criminal and civil proceedings.

Have these not been in place up to now? The answer is yes. Just renaming them isn't going to solve the problems.

What happens when the marching season starts again in 2015, how will this 'remarkable achievement' solve the disputes. Or the Twaddell Avenue debacle? It won't.

Bluffers the lot of them.

Godge

NIMAN wrote: »

I listened to reports on the radio tonight saying that it was a momentus day for the North, after 11 weeks of intensive talks, and that it would really shape the country for the future.

I have just done some reading on different websites and can't actually see what was achieved today, other than them getting £2bn promised and a few commissions being set up to deal with the issues they were having.

Surely setting up more comissions to do more talking isn't progress in NI? Sure they have been talking for years and made little or no progress, hence the reason they are at an impasse now. More commissions will only bring more arguments next year, will they not?

From where I am, I think nothing was achieved today to make NI a better place or move it forward one bit. Nothing but spin imho.

It means little enough. However, from a southern perspective, there are a few things to note.

Sinn Fein has agreed to cut public expenditure, to reduce taxes on business, to cut the numbers of teachers and nurses, to cut social welfare, all things that they say they oppose in the South.

kippy

Godge wrote: »

It means little enough. However, from a southern perspective, there are a few things to note.

Sinn Fein has agreed to cut public expenditure, to reduce taxes on business, to cut the numbers of teachers and nurses, to cut social welfare, all things that they say they oppose in the South.

And that should be highlighted to the nth degree. SF are polls apart on there ideology in the North and South.

DeJa VooDoo

Godge wrote: »

It means little enough. However, from a southern perspective, there are a few things to note.

Sinn Fein has agreed to cut public expenditure, to reduce taxes on business, to cut the numbers of teachers and nurses, to cut social welfare, all things that they say they oppose in the South.

Are you seriously trying to compare how the north of Ireland and the south are funded?
Other than the fact that both administrations have to go, cap in hand, to London looking for money, they're poles apart.

Godge

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to compare how the north of Ireland and the south are funded?
Other than the fact that both administrations have to go, cap in hand, to London looking for money, they're poles apart.

That is a very strange post. We in the South don't need to go cap in hand to London.

The point is very clear. SF agree to things in the North that they oppose in the South, they cannot be trusted as a result.

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

It means little enough. However, from a southern perspective, there are a few things to note.

Sinn Fein has agreed to cut public expenditure, to reduce taxes on business, to cut the numbers of teachers and nurses, to cut social welfare, all things that they say they oppose in the South.

kippy wrote: »

And that should be highlighted to the nth degree. SF are polls apart on there ideology in the North and South.

Godge wrote: »

That is a very strange post. We in the South don't need to go cap in hand to London.

The point is very clear. SF agree to things in the North that they oppose in the South, they cannot be trusted as a result.

Once again we see the anti-republicans openly displaying their total ignorance of the Irish political systems. In the north SF had two choices, compromise and do what they could to soften the blow of the worst Tory cuts or hold fast, allow unionists to collapse the assembly and stand by as direct rule is reintroduced and allow the Tory cuts to run rampant unabated. But sure hey, dont let the facts get in the way of a nice headline.
I also find it interesting that a lot of the people on Boards lambasting SF for this deal are the same ones who were lambasting them for holding up he assembly by opposing Tory cuts.
See, when you attack SF no matter what they do it delegitimises your whole political outlook. You arent opposed to them because of their politics, youre opposed to them because they are SF. It's blind hatred, not a considered political opinion.

kippy

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Once again we see the anti-republicans openly displaying their total ignorance of the Irish political systems. In the north SF had two choices, compromise and do what they could to soften the blow of the worst Tory cuts or hold fast, allow unionists to collapse the assembly and stand by as direct rule is reintroduced and allow the Tory cuts to run rampant unabated. But sure hey, dont let the facts get in the way of a nice headline.
I also find it interesting that a lot of the people on Boards lambasting SF for this deal are the same ones who were lambasting them for holding up he assembly by opposing Tory cuts.
See, when you attack SF no matter what they do it delegitimises your whole political outlook. You arent opposed to them because of their politics, youre opposed to them because they are SF. It's blind hatred, not a considered political opinion.

What does "anti-republican" actually mean? Because you aren't describing me.

I'm anti SF, but not necessarily anti-republican.

SF have very blatantly two completely different sets of policies for the North and the south. They support water and housing charges in the North for example.
They don't appear to be able to assist balancing the books in the North without the assistance of London. The main policy that is shared across both areas is the requirement for a "united Ireland".

I'm opposed to SF because:
1. They've a recent history of directly supporting violence, the killing of innocent children, the abuse of women and children, they support lawbreaking.
2. *More importantly for me, they fiscal policies are off the wall. This country would be back in the dark ages if they were to get control with job losses and almost irreversible harm done to the economy. Granted we're not in a great position at the moment but it would get a lot worse with SF at the helm.

no doubt you'll throw the standard replies back in my face but that's to be expected at this stage.

DeJa VooDoo

Godge wrote: »

That is a very strange post. We in the South don't need to go cap in hand to London.

Eh, I think you'll find they did.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fireland-interest-repayment-to-britain-1120288-Oct2013%2F&ei=ZHSmVLimMoqAUcOPgfAO&usg=AFQjCNEGQwy_RBmwjDK0mUur4ZN3PBb44Q

DeJa VooDoo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You aren't opposed to them because of their politics, you're opposed to them because they are SF. It's blind hatred, not a considered political opinion.

Supporters of FF/FG and Labour in the republic would rather see a return to the days of murder and mayhem in one part of this country than see their cosy little cabal broken up.

SF are the biggest threat to that cabal, so by constantly bringing up PIRA actions before the GFA/peace process (Put to referendum and passed by 94% of people in the republic) etc etc, they hope the SF vote will collapse.
They're so stupid and blinded by hatred that they can't see that all they are achieving is an ever increasing number of people turning away from the cabal and considering SF.

Valetta

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Eh, I think you'll find they did.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fireland-interest-repayment-to-britain-1120288-Oct2013%2F&ei=ZHSmVLimMoqAUcOPgfAO&usg=AFQjCNEGQwy_RBmwjDK0mUur4ZN3PBb44Q

That's Ireland being a net contributor to the British economy, not the other way around, as you have implied.

Nothing "cap in hand" at all about it.

DeJa VooDoo

Valetta wrote: »

That's Ireland being a net contributor to the British economy, not the other way around, as you have implied.

Nothing "cap in hand" at all about it.

LOL.
That's a good one.
One way to spin the fact that we had to go to London to get money (£3.2 billion) to keep Ireland funded.

listermint

kippy wrote: »

What does "anti-republican" actually mean? Because you aren't describing me.

I'm anti SF, but not necessarily anti-republican.

SF have very blatantly two completely different sets of policies for the North and the south. They support water and housing charges in the North for example.
They don't appear to be able to assist balancing the books in the North without the assistance of London. The main policy that is shared across both areas is the requirement for a "united Ireland".

I'm opposed to SF because:
1. They've a recent history of directly supporting violence, the killing of innocent children, the abuse of women and children, they support lawbreaking.
2. *More importantly for me, they fiscal policies are off the wall. This country would be back in the dark ages if they were to get control with job losses and almost irreversible harm done to the economy. Granted we're not in a great position at the moment but it would get a lot worse with SF at the helm.

no doubt you'll throw the standard replies back in my face but that's to be expected at this stage.

Im neither for not against SF, But to say they can possibly have policies that match two fundamentally different environments is a bit simplistic dont you thing ? Whatever about their ideologies you have to govern based on environments and funding. Its silly to compare the two jurisdictions like that.

DeJa VooDoo

kippy wrote: »

They support water and housing charges in the North for example.

Are there domestic water charges in the North?

Valetta

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

LOL.
That's a good one.
One way to spin the fact that we had to go to London to get money (£3.2 billion) to keep the country funded.

We didn't just "get" money.

We borrowed it and are paying it back with interest.

Nothing "cap in hand" about that.

DeJa VooDoo

Valetta wrote: »

We didn't just "get" money.

We borrowed it and are paying it back with interest.

Nothing "cap in hand" about that.

Grand.
So we did have to go to the UK to secure funding to pay for the upkeep of this country.
Glad we cleared that up.

Valetta

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Grand.
So we did have to go to the UK to secure funding to pay for the upkeep of this country.
Glad we cleared that up.

But that's not what you said in your first post.

DeJa VooDoo

As far as I'm aware, and maybe I'm wrong on this:rolleyes:, the six counties of Northern Ireland are part of the UK and as such London has a financial, legal and moral responsibility for it.

The republic of Ireland, a sovereign state:rolleyes:, in 2010 had to ask London for almost €4 billion in loans to fund itself.

Maybe I'm missing something here ali?

Crooked Jack

kippy wrote: »

What does "anti-republican" actually mean? Because you aren't describing me.

I'm anti SF, but not necessarily anti-republican.

SF have very blatantly two completely different sets of policies for the North and the south. They support water and housing charges in the North for example.
They don't appear to be able to assist balancing the books in the North without the assistance of London. The main policy that is shared across both areas is the requirement for a "united Ireland".

I'm opposed to SF because:
1. They've a recent history of directly supporting violence, the killing of innocent children, the abuse of women and children, they support lawbreaking.
2. *More importantly for me, they fiscal policies are off the wall. This country would be back in the dark ages if they were to get control with job losses and almost irreversible harm done to the economy. Granted we're not in a great position at the moment but it would get a lot worse with SF at the helm.

no doubt you'll throw the standard replies back in my face but that's to be expected at this stage.

Again, all you have done here is betray your absolute ignorance of Ireland's political systems and thrown some blatant lies into the mix. "They support water charges in the north" for example. Absolute lie. SF's Conor Murphy blocked water charges in the north some seven years ago.
"Sinn Fein support lawbreaking." Absolute lie.

What exactly is "the standard reply"? Is it to point out that you're lying and that the two political systems are incomparable? If so, please stop lying and trying to equate the systems and people wont have to give you the standard reply. Believe me, it's far more tiring for me to have to repeatedly give it to you than for you to repeatedly receive it.

Godge

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

LOL.
That's a good one.
One way to spin the fact that we had to go to London to get money (£3.2 billion) to keep Ireland funded.

If you can't understand the difference between a grant given to support the North and a loan at commercial rate, well, what is the point?

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Once again we see the anti-republicans openly displaying their total ignorance of the Irish political systems. In the north SF had two choices, compromise and do what they could to soften the blow of the worst Tory cuts or hold fast, allow unionists to collapse the assembly and stand by as direct rule is reintroduced and allow the Tory cuts to run rampant unabated. But sure hey, dont let the facts get in the way of a nice headline.
I also find it interesting that a lot of the people on Boards lambasting SF for this deal are the same ones who were lambasting them for holding up he assembly by opposing Tory cuts.
See, when you attack SF no matter what they do it delegitimises your whole political outlook. You arent opposed to them because of their politics, youre opposed to them because they are SF. It's blind hatred, not a considered political opinion.

So after the next election if the SF choices are to let FG back in to allow "their cuts to run rampant unabated" or to compromise in a coalition with FF (maybe supporting water charges and the LPT), you will be calling and supporting the coalition option?

DeJa VooDoo

Godge wrote: »

If you can't understand the difference between a grant given to support the North and a loan at commercial rate, well, what is the point?

The north is part of the UK.
It's London's responsibility.

Point was that we had to borrow money off the UK government to keep this state going.
Maybe you should follow the thread a bit better or is this part of your 'everything a Sinn Fein voter says is wrong' tactic as I predicted on the other thread?
That makes you look quite foolish you know.

NIMAN

Did the UK not offer the loan?

I think we are such an important trading partner with them that they didn't want to see us go bust. Would have hurt them badly too.

It was a win-win for them.

DeJa VooDoo

NIMAN wrote: »

Did the UK not offer the loan?

I think we are such an important trading partner with them that they didn't want to see us go bust. Would have hurt them badly too.

It was a win-win for them.

The point is that London has a responsibility towards the people of northern Ireland as long as it's part of the UK.
London funds the six counties because it isn't economically viable to stand on it's own.

As this is the situation any comparisons between how that part of the country is funded, how the parties up there form their budgets and how this supposed sovereign nation is funded and forms it's budgets is ridiculous in the extreme.

People on here are attacking SF for having different budgetary positions in the north and in the south when it's quite obvious to anyone with half a brain that the two positions cannot be the same.

At the end of the day though, Southern Ireland had to avail of loans from London to keep itself afloat. Cap in hand or not, the governments so far in this country have led us to the position where we obviously cannot survive without Britain's help.

Godge

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

The north is part of the UK.
It's London's responsibility.

Point was that we had to borrow money off the UK government to keep this state going.
Maybe you should follow the thread a bit better or is this part of your 'everything a Sinn Fein voter says is wrong' tactic as I predicted on the other thread?
That makes you look quite foolish you know.

I have been following the thread.

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, and maybe I'm wrong on this:rolleyes:, the six counties of Northern Ireland are part of the UK and as such London has a financial, legal and moral responsibility for it.

The republic of Ireland, a sovereign state:rolleyes:, in 2010 had to ask London for almost €4 billion in loans to fund itself.

Maybe I'm missing something here ali?

Here is where you admit that you realise that the North (grant) and the South (loan at commercial rates) are different, not that you seem to grasp the significance of the difference.

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to compare how the north of Ireland and the south are funded?
Other than the fact that both administrations have to go, cap in hand, to London looking for money, they're poles apart.

Here is where you say they are the same.

Before you get on your high horse, you might want to look at what you are posting.

DeJa VooDoo

Godge wrote: »

I have been following the thread.





Here is where you admit that you realise that the North (grant) and the South (loan at commercial rates) are different, not that you seem to grasp the significance of the difference.



Here is where you say they are the same.

Before you get on your high horse, you might want to look at what you are posting.

Yes Godge.
Whatever you say.:rolleyes:

kippy

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Again, all you have done here is betray your absolute ignorance of Ireland's political systems and thrown some blatant lies into the mix. "They support water charges in the north" for example. Absolute lie. SF's Conor Murphy blocked water charges in the north some seven years ago.
"Sinn Fein support lawbreaking." Absolute lie.

What exactly is "the standard reply"? Is it to point out that you're lying and that the two political systems are incomparable? If so, please stop lying and trying to equate the systems and people wont have to give you the standard reply. Believe me, it's far more tiring for me to have to repeatedly give it to you than for you to repeatedly receive it.

Water charges, fair enough, not currently in place in the North, however the infrastructure is there for them.
Of course Sinn Fein support lawbreaking....how many people with a criminal record are within the party, how many deaths have the party hierarchy been directly responsible for (again I expect a standard reply here), they supported one of the biggest terrorist organisations in the world at the time for years.......
Standard reply, was one I got earlier - you're anti republican........you don't know anything about politics, etc etc

Crooked Jack

kippy wrote: »

Water charges, fair enough, not currently in place in the North, however the infrastructure is there for them.

The infrastructure is there for them? Jesus you're really grasping

kippy wrote: »

Of course Sinn Fein support lawbreaking....how many people with a criminal record are within the party,

SF opposed a corrupt state and police force, when that came to an end their position changed. If you consider what existed in the north before the GFA to be anything approaching "law" then that says all we need to know about you. SF have repeatedly urged support for the gardai/psni with Martin McGuinness going so far as to brand dissidents traitors.

kippy wrote: »

how many deaths have the party hierarchy been directly responsible for (again I expect a standard reply here),

How many? cause you seem to know. Give us some names and numbers. Tell me a few people individual members of the "party hierarchy" have had killed.

kippy wrote: »

they supported one of the biggest terrorist organisations in the world at the time for years.......

They supported the only realistic recourse the beleaguered nationalist people of the north had. Who else were they to turn to? The free state that abandoned them. The civil rights movement that was beaten and shot off the streets. The police or army who did the beating and shooting. The stormont regime that presided over, indeed encouraged all this?

kippy wrote: »

Standard reply, was one I got earlier - you're anti republican........you don't know anything about politics, etc etc

If you keep making the same ill informed statements you'll keep getting the same corrections. what are people to do? Allow you to wallow in your ignorance?

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

So after the next election if the SF choices are to let FG back in to allow "their cuts to run rampant unabated" or to compromise in a coalition with FF (maybe supporting water charges and the LPT), you will be calling and supporting the coalition option?

What in the name of Christ are you talking about? Why is this so hard for you to understand. If SF take a principled stand against cuts in the south the dail doesnt automatically collapse leaving the country at the whims of a handful of english ministers. Can you really not understand the differences or are you just refusing to accept that the two systems are incomparable because pretending they are suits your agenda?

Godge

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Yes Godge.
Whatever you say.:rolleyes:

A typical SF response, full of substance, not.

Fr Tod Umptious

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The infrastructure is there for them? Jesus you're really grasping



SF opposed a corrupt state and police force, when that came to an end their position changed. If you consider what existed in the north before the GFA to be anything approaching "law" then that says all we need to know about you. SF have repeatedly urged support for the gardai/psni with Martin McGuinness going so far as to brand dissidents traitors.



How many? cause you seem to know. Give us some names and numbers. Tell me a few people individual members of the "party hierarchy" have had killed.



They supported the only realistic recourse the beleaguered nationalist people of the north had. Who else were they to turn to? The free state that abandoned them. The civil rights movement that was beaten and shot off the streets. The police or army who did the beating and shooting. The stormont regime that presided over, indeed encouraged all this?



If you keep making the same ill informed statements you'll keep getting the same corrections. what are people to do? Allow you to wallow in your ignorance?

Thanks for the standard reply.

Corrupt state, prove that SF were responsible for murders during troubles, use of the term "free state" etc etc.

Crooked Jack

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Thanks for the standard reply.

Is 'standard reply' the new anti-SF buzzword? has Shinnerbot fallen out of fashion. If people insist on making the same old empty accusations with nothing to back it up what choice have others but to give them the same reply.
I pointed out that several of the posters statements were empty accusations and much of their information was wrong. Yup, pretty standard when dealing with the anti shinners on boards

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Corrupt state,

are you saying it wasnt?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

prove that SF were responsible for murders during troubles,

how unreasonable to ask posters to back up their allegations

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

use of the term "free state" etc etc.

what of it?

Godge

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Thanks for the standard reply.

Corrupt state, prove that SF were responsible for murders during troubles, use of the term "free state" etc etc.

The standard reply is getting tiresome.

At least they have stopped asking me to prove Gerry Adams is a liar. They used to demand that I produce evidence of his conviction until I informed them that it is not a criminal act to lie.

DeJa VooDoo

Godge wrote: »

The standard reply is getting tiresome.

At least they have stopped asking me to prove Gerry Adams is a liar. They used to demand that I produce evidence of his conviction until I informed them that it is not a criminal act to lie.

Like all politicians he tells lies.
That's the only thing you can prove.
Everything else you post about SF is a smear.
True blueshirt.

kippy

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The infrastructure is there for them? Jesus you're really grasping



SF opposed a corrupt state and police force, when that came to an end their position changed. If you consider what existed in the north before the GFA to be anything approaching "law" then that says all we need to know about you. SF have repeatedly urged support for the gardai/psni with Martin McGuinness going so far as to brand dissidents traitors.



How many? cause you seem to know. Give us some names and numbers. Tell me a few people individual members of the "party hierarchy" have had killed.



They supported the only realistic recourse the beleaguered nationalist people of the north had. Who else were they to turn to? The free state that abandoned them. The civil rights movement that was beaten and shot off the streets. The police or army who did the beating and shooting. The stormont regime that presided over, indeed encouraged all this?



If you keep making the same ill informed statements you'll keep getting the same corrections. what are people to do? Allow you to wallow in your ignorance?

If you believe that none of the SF leader haven't been directly responsible for bloodshed fair play. They've done their job.

DeJa VooDoo

kippy wrote: »

If you believe that none of the SF leader haven't been directly responsible for bloodshed fair play. They've done their job.

I'm sure they were during those times.
Adams was probably well up there too. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Fair play to Adams and the likes for attempting to protect Catholics/Nationalists from orange scum who were burning them out of their homes.

Do you think we had refugee camps in the south for Catholics just for the craic like?

You people like to look at the troubles through the eyes of today and how we do things today.
Remember this, without Adams, McGuinness, Hume etc there would be no GFA, no peace process and the mayhem would be continuing.

Long after the usual mouthpieces on here and in Dail Eireann are six foot under and forgotten, Adams and the rest of the architects of peace on this island will be remembered for the great service they did for Ireland.

kippy

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

I'm sure they were during those times.
Adams was probably well up there too. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Fair play to Adams and the likes for attempting to protect Catholics/Nationalists from orange scum who were burning them out of their homes.

Do you think we had refugee camps in the south for Catholics just for the craic like?

You people like to look at the troubles through the eyes of today and how we do things today.
Remember this, without Adams, McGuinness, Hume etc there would be no GFA, no peace process and the mayhem would be continuing.

Long after the usual mouthpieces on here and in Dail Eireann are six foot under and forgotten, Adams and the rest of the architects of peace on this island will be remembered for the great service they did for Ireland.

We mightn't have had a conflict if it wasn't for them either, or a conflict that went on so long - it's daft on one hand to say weren't they a great bunch a lads for killing people and on the other were't they a great bunch of lads for being involved in a peace process.
In my opinion the biggest conributor to peace in the north were the Yanks and specificilly Bill Clinton. The yanks tightened up big time on terrorists at the beginning of the decade and that was a major reason why the parties up there had to get their acts together.

In all fairness, they did well to get any level of a peace up there but to wipe under the carpet any past misdemeanors simply because they were involved in a peace process is to make a mockery of the actual situation/

Crooked Jack

kippy wrote: »

If you believe that none of the SF leader haven't been directly responsible for bloodshed fair play. They've done their job.

Oh, I know exactly who was responsible for bloodshed in the north. Need i remind you that the Provos were the last players to enter the conflict and the first to call an end to it. That of all the groups involved in the conflict the IRA had by far the best record when it came to avoiding civilian casualties. That every time the peace process or stormont faltered it was republicans who compromised and sacrificed to keep it afloat.
Republicans were clearly not responsible for the war but they were definitely responsible for the peace

Crooked Jack

kippy wrote: »

We mightn't have had a conflict if it wasn't for them either, or a conflict that went on so long

Yeah, wouldnt it all have been so much easier if those taigs had just laid down and died like they were supposed to.

kippy wrote: »

- it's daft on one hand to say weren't they a great bunch a lads for killing people and on the other were't they a great bunch of lads for being involved in a peace process.

Typical ignorant, black and white view of the conflict from the uninformed. Talk about your "standard response." The IRA entered the conflict on a purely defensive basis. They didnt go to war, war came to them. It was, however, republicans who were the driving force behind the peace process. So yes, a great bunch of lads.

kippy wrote: »

In my opinion the biggest conributor to peace in the north were the Yanks and specificilly Bill Clinton. The yanks tightened up big time on terrorists at the beginning of the decade and that was a major reason why the parties up there had to get their acts together.

Drivel. The IRA had the weaponry and man power to keep going for another 50 years. "The yanks tightened up big time on terrorists." And? What has that got to do with us. What were they going to do, send drones over Crossmaglen? It was the Humes/Adams initiative that was by far the biggest contributor to the process. I have no doubt American interest encouraged the brit gov. to play more of a role but to claim they were the biggest contributor once again just displays your total ignorance of irish politics.

kippy wrote: »

In all fairness, they did well to get any level of a peace up there but to wipe under the carpet any past misdemeanors simply because they were involved in a peace process is to make a mockery of the actual situation/

Firstly, from your posts its quite clear you have no idea what the "actual situation" is or was. Secondly, it's not SF seeking to brush anything under the carpet. They are the ones constantly calling for a truth and reconciliation process Its the Brits and the unionists opposed to it. Why? Because I suspect they have more to lose than anyone

DeJa VooDoo

kippy wrote: »

We mightn't have had a conflict if it wasn't for them either

I'd suggest you read up on the history and the causes of the troubles and why the PIRA were needed in the first place.

DeJa VooDoo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Secondly, it's not SF seeking to brush anything under the carpet. They are the ones constantly calling for a truth and reconciliation process Its the Brits and the unionists opposed to it. Why? Because I suspect they have more to lose than anyone

Much like Enda is pulling back from a north/south investigation into sex abuse at the behest of Mairia Cahill and wants 'a scoping exercise' into Sinn Fein in the run up to the general election.
What vile and disgusting creatures we have in government here.

kippy

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Yeah, wouldnt it all have been so much easier if those taigs had just laid down and died like they were supposed to.



Typical ignorant, black and white view of the conflict from the uninformed. Talk about your "standard response." The IRA entered the conflict on a purely defensive basis. They didnt go to war, war came to them. It was, however, republicans who were the driving force behind the peace process. So yes, a great bunch of lads.



Drivel. The IRA had the weaponry and man power to keep going for another 50 years. "The yanks tightened up big time on terrorists." And? What has that got to do with us. What were they going to do, send drones over Crossmaglen? It was the Humes/Adams initiative that was by far the biggest contributor to the process. I have no doubt American interest encouraged the brit gov. to play more of a role but to claim they were the biggest contributor once again just displays your total ignorance of irish politics.



Firstly, from your posts its quite clear you have no idea what the "actual situation" is or was. Secondly, it's not SF seeking to brush anything under the carpet. They are the ones constantly calling for a truth and reconciliation process Its the Brits and the unionists opposed to it. Why? Because I suspect they have more to lose than anyone

Truth and reconciliation? From Sinn Fein? You're kidding me.
These are they guys behind the Northern Bank robbery, most of the fuel and money laundering on the border, the dissappeared and major criminal acts that have never been solved.
Granted the other side of the fence have plenty to answer for as well but that does not exonerate one party.
The yanks tightened up big time on the fundraising that used to go on in the states. Made it much more difficult for SF/IRA to raise money over there and completely changed it's attitude towards terrorists in general, no matter what the lobby. Bill Clinton had as much to do with knocking heads together and getting grownups talking than anyone else in my opinion. Without him and the American influence I'd say they'd still be blowing up innocent people in the north.

Of course people were "protected" at some point by those that eventually turned to killing and kidnapping innocent women, children and bystanders.

kippy

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Much like Enda is pulling back from a north/south investigation into sex abuse at the behest of Mairia Cahill and wants 'a scoping exercise' into Sinn Fein in the run up to the general election.
What vile and disgusting creatures we have in government here.

I'd agree with you here to be fair.
Political stunts are being pulled left right and center to discredit SF and their leadership as FG are running scared.

maccored

kippy wrote: »

Truth and reconciliation? From Sinn Fein? You're kidding me.
These are they guys behind the Northern Bank robbery, most of the fuel and money laundering on the border, the dissappeared and major criminal acts that have never been solved.
Granted the other side of the fence have plenty to answer for as well but that does not exonerate one party.
The yanks tightened up big time on the fundraising that used to go on in the states. Made it much more difficult for SF/IRA to raise money over there and completely changed it's attitude towards terrorists in general, no matter what the lobby. Bill Clinton had as much to do with knocking heads together and getting grownups talking than anyone else in my opinion. Without him and the American influence I'd say they'd still be blowing up innocent people in the north.

Of course people were "protected" at some point by those that eventually turned to killing and kidnapping innocent women, children and bystanders.

SF robs banks now too? ... amazing. I wonder how they managed to fit that in with all the killing they were at :rolleyes: . The word 'gullible' has taken on a new meaning ever since I started reading this thread.

Crooked Jack

kippy wrote: »

Truth and reconciliation? From Sinn Fein? You're kidding me.

Nope. For someone who posts so extensively on Irish politics you sure seem to know damn all about them

http://www.thedetail.tv/issues/209/reconciliation/should-truth-be-separated-from-reconciliation

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/26059

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/26695

http://sluggerotoole.com/2007/06/08/sinn-feins-unionist-outreach-officer-replaced/

kippy wrote: »

These are they guys behind the Northern Bank robbery, most of the fuel and money laundering on the border, the dissappeared and major criminal acts that have never been solved.

Really? I mean, really? Are you actually going to waffle on indignantly about "standard responses" and then come out with this drivel?

kippy wrote: »

Granted the other side of the fence have plenty to answer for as well but that does not exonerate one party.

I'll write it in italics, maybe that will help. Sinn Fein support a Truth and Reconciliation Process. At no point has anyone asked for republican actions to be overlooked, they just ask that people look at the conflict as a whole and all the players. Tell me how, outside of narrow political gain for their opponents, does just vilifying one side aid truth and reconciliation?

kippy wrote: »

The yanks tightened up big time on the fundraising that used to go on in the states. Made it much more difficult for SF/IRA to raise money over there and completely changed it's attitude towards terrorists in general, no matter what the lobby. Bill Clinton had as much to do with knocking heads together and getting grownups talking than anyone else in my opinion. Without him and the American influence I'd say they'd still be blowing up innocent people in the north.

You seem to have serious trouble reading. After the IRA got weapons from Libya they had enough material to keep them going for another 50 years. That's without fundraising or getting arms (generally small arms) from America. Not to mention that their bombs were largely made from easily obtainable industrial and agricultural material. Again (because I need to repeat everything for you) Im not dismissing American help, im challenging your assertion that Clinton's contribution was the most important when it patently was not.

kippy wrote: »

Of course people were "protected" at some point by those that eventually turned to killing and kidnapping innocent women, children and bystanders.

Tell me more about your ire for "standard responses." I repeat again, the IRA had by far the best record when it came to avoiding civilian casualties.
That's the third time ive had to repeat myself in one post to you. This is why you keep getting the same responses over and over again. You have nothing to add to the debate and so you spew out the same empty rhetoric.

kippy

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Nope. For someone who posts so extensively on Irish politics you sure seem to know damn all about them

http://www.thedetail.tv/issues/209/reconciliation/should-truth-be-separated-from-reconciliation

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/26059

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/26695

http://sluggerotoole.com/2007/06/08/sinn-feins-unionist-outreach-officer-replaced/



Really? I mean, really? Are you actually going to waffle on indignantly about "standard responses" and then come out with this drivel?



I'll write it in italics, maybe that will help. Sinn Fein support a Truth and Reconciliation Process. At no point has anyone asked for republican actions to be overlooked, they just ask that people look at the conflict as a whole and all the players. Tell me how, outside of narrow political gain for their opponents, does just vilifying one side aid truth and reconciliation?



You seem to have serious trouble reading. After the IRA got weapons from Libya they had enough material to keep them going for another 50 years. That's without fundraising or getting arms (generally small arms) from America. Not to mention that their bombs were largely made from easily obtainable industrial and agricultural material. Again (because I need to repeat everything for you) Im not dismissing American help, im challenging your assertion that Clinton's contribution was the most important when it patently was not.



Tell me more about your ire for "standard responses." I repeat again, the IRA had by far the best record when it came to avoiding civilian casualties.
That's the third time ive had to repeat myself in one post to you. This is why you keep getting the same responses over and over again. You have nothing to add to the debate and so you spew out the same empty rhetoric.

I'm out.
There's zero point in arguing with someone who uses the "line"
"we've killed less innocent people than you, hence we are better"
, doesn't understand that the pressure applied by the americans on all sides as well as carrots and sticks provided by same was key to getting these people talking,
and finally, has no appreciation for the past and current actions of a party run by two men who were directly responsible for a hell of a lot of criminal activity on both sides of the border.

Crooked Jack

kippy wrote: »

I'm out.

say it aint so

kippy wrote: »

There's zero point in arguing with someone who uses the "line"
"we've killed less innocent people than you, hence we are better"

Nice strawman, of course, i said nothing of the sort. I was, as anyone can see, providing factual statistics to counter your "werent they a great bunch of lads for killing people" argument. Typical of the factually barren generalisations youve been making throughout this thread.

kippy wrote: »

, doesn't understand that the pressure applied by the americans on all sides as well as carrots and sticks provided by same was key to getting these people talking,

And again, nice strawman but not true. As i've stated, for the third time now, im challenging your assertion that Clinton was the most important contributor to the process. Honestly Kip, y'know this isnt snapchat, your previous posts dont disappear after you write them, people can just scroll down and see youre being disingenuous

kippy wrote: »

and finally, has no appreciation for the past and current actions of a party run by two men who were directly responsible for a hell of a lot of criminal activity on both sides of the border.

I have great appreciation for what SF and the IRA have done, Id just be some second class taig without them, though thats not to say i agree with all their actions.
"A hell of a lot of criminal activity," more incredibly specific accusations there from kip, delivered with laser guided accuracy and backed up with links and facts.
Let me try. I declare that Enda Kenny planned the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Proof you say? Here ya go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPnZZTVp_2A

DeJa VooDoo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I declare that Enda Kenny planned the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.

Well, he may not have planned them, but his party along with labour made sure there was no investigation into them.

From the Barron report..

The Barron Report criticised the Irish police (Garda) investigation into the bombings, and the reaction of the Fine Gael/Labour government of the time.

The Report said that the Garda investigation failed to make full use of the information it had. For example, when the RUC told the Gardaí it had arrested some of the suspected bombers, the Gardaí apparently did not ask their names nor what information led to their arrest. It revealed that there is a great deal of official Garda documentation that is missing. Barron said that Department of Justice files on the Dublin bombings were "missing in their entirety" and that the Department did not give any records to the Inquiry. The Report concluded that the Garda investigation team stopped their work before they should have. The specially-appointed investigation team was disbanded in July 1974, two months after the bombings.

Barron's report noted that the Fine Gael/Labour government of the time "showed little interest in the bombings" and did not do enough to help the investigation. "When information was given to them suggesting that the British authorities had intelligence naming the bombers, this was not followed up".
It failed to put political pressure on the British government to secure better co-operation from the RUC.
It was also alleged that the Fine Gael/Labour government caused or allowed the Garda investigation to end prematurely, for fear that the findings would play into the hands of republicans."




The investigation into the worst day of the troubles was wound down after 2 months by FG/Labour.
FFS, they're still arresting people over the murder of the alleged tout mcconville.

Good little west brits, eh.

Godge

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Much like Enda is pulling back from a north/south investigation into sex abuse at the behest of Mairia Cahill and wants 'a scoping exercise' into Sinn Fein in the run up to the general election.
What vile and disgusting creatures we have in government here.

Watch this space, there is plenty more on the Sinn Fein child sexual abuse cover-up scandal to come.

The two justice ministers are still talking about it, the review of the prosecution case is to come, and I am sure that more victims will also come forward.

Seeing as you missed most of that debate, being a newcomer here, I take it from your other posts about rapists (Larry Murphy) that you utterly condemn what happened to Mairia Cahiill and that anyone who has information about what happened to her, including those on the kangaroo court, should make themselves available for questioning by the police? You are against double standards, aren't you?