[article] Gerry Adams Addreses the IRA

mike65

from http://www.sinnfein.ie/news/detail/9106

I want to speak directly to the men and women of Oglaigh na hEireann, the volunteer soldiers of the Irish Republican Army.

In time of great peril you stepped into the Bearna Baoil, the gap of danger. When others stood idly by, you and your families gave your all, in defence of a risen people and in pursuit of Irish freedom and unity.

Against mighty odds you held the line and faced down a huge military foe, the British crown forces and their surrogates in the unionist death squads.

Eleven years ago the Army leadership ordered a complete cessation of military operations. This courageous decision was in response to proposals put forward by the Sinn Fein leadership to construct a peace process, build democratic politics and achieve a lasting peace.

Since then despite many provocations and setbacks the cessation has endured.

And more than that, when elements within the British and Irish establishments and rejectionist unionism delayed progress, it was the IRA leadership which authorised a number of significant initiatives to enhance the peace process.

On a number of occasions commitments have been reneged on. These include commitments from the two governments.

The Irish Republican Army has kept every commitment made by its leadership.

The most recent of these was last December when the IRA was prepared to support a comprehensive agreement. At that time the Army leadership said the implementation of this agreement would allow everyone, including the IRA, to take its political objectives forward by peaceful and democratic means.

That agreement perished on the rock of unionist intransigence. The shortsightedness of the two governments compounded the difficulties.

Since then there has been a vicious campaign of vilification against republicans, driven in the main by the Irish government. There are a number of reasons for this.

The growing political influence of Sinn Fein is a primary factor.

The unionists also for their part, want to minimise the potential for change, not only on the equality agenda but on the issues of sovereignty and ending the union.

The IRA is being used as the excuse by them all not to engage properly in the process of building peace with justice in Ireland.

For over thirty years the IRA showed that the British government could not rule Ireland on its own terms. You asserted the legitimacy of the right of the people of this island to freedom and independence. Many of your comrades made the ultimate sacrifice.

Your determination, selflessness and courage have brought the freedom struggle towards its fulfillment.

That struggle can now be taken forward by other means. I say this with the authority of my office as President of Sinn Fein.

In the past I have defended the right of the IRA to engage in armed struggle. I did so because there was no alternative for those who would not bend the knee, or turn a blind eye to oppression, or for those who wanted a national republic.

Now there is an alternative.

I have clearly set out my view of what that alternative is. The way forward is by building political support for republican and democratic objectives across Ireland and by winning support for these goals internationally.

I want to use this occasion therefore to appeal to the leadership of Oglaigh na hEireann to fully embrace and accept this alternative.

Can you take courageous initiatives which will achieve your aims by purely political and democratic activity?

I know full well that such truly historic decisions can only be taken in the aftermath of intense internal consultation. I ask that you initiate this as quickly as possible.

I understand fully that the IRAs most recent positive contribution to the peace process was in the context of a comprehensive agreement. But I also hold the very strong view that republicans need to lead by example.

There is no greater demonstration of this than the IRA cessation in the summer of 1994.

Sinn Fein has demonstrated the ability to play a leadership role as part of a popular movement towards peace, equality and justice.

We are totally commited to ending partition and to creating the conditions for unity and independence. Sinn Fein has the potential and capacity to become the vehicle for the attainment of republican objectives.

The Ireland we live in today is also very different place from 15 years ago. There is now an all-Ireland agenda with huge potential.

Nationalists and republicans have a confidence that will never again allow anyone to be treated as second class citizens. Equality is our watchword.

The catalyst for much of this change is the growing support for republicanism.

Of course, those who oppose change are not going to simply roll over. It will always be a battle a day between those who want maximum change and those who want to maintain the status quo. But if republicans are to prevail, if the peace process is to be successfully concluded and Irish sovereignty and re-unification secured, then we have to set the agenda - no one else is going to do that.

So, I also want to make a personal appeal to all of you - the women and men volunteers who have remained undefeated in the face of tremendous odds.

Now is the time for you to step into the Bearna Baoil again; not as volunteers risking life and limb but as activists in a national movement towards independence and unity.

Such decisions will be far reaching and difficult. But you never lacked courage in the past. Your courage is now needed for the future.

It won‚t be easy. There are many problems to be resolved by the people of Ireland in the time ahead. Your ability as republican volunteers, to rise to this challenge will mean that the two governments and others cannot easily hide from their obligations and their responsibility to resolve these problems.

Our struggle has reached a defining moment.

I am asking you to join me in seizing this moment, to intensify our efforts, to rebuild the peace process and decisively move our struggle forward.

When I heard of this speech earlier today I was wondering if he'd actually say "time for peace time to go" to the PIRA. And he has I think...intersting to see what follows..if anything. The last thing SF or indeed anyone needs is for the PIRA not to respond and pretty quickly.

Mike.

Squaletto

It is brilliant to hear Mr Adams tell us all what had to be said to those who doubted Adams in the past.
Bravo Gerry, now lets get down to the real work of uniting the island through peaceful means.

colster

Squaletto wrote:

It is brilliant to hear Mr Adams tell us all what had to be said to those who doubted Adams in the past.
Bravo Gerry, now lets get down to the real work of uniting the island through peaceful means.

Should have said this a long time ago. Better late than never I suppose.

Villain

I welcome this speech, I just hope the IRA repsond in a positive manner and we can move forward.

cdebru

not much alternative the leadership of the republican movement have known since the beginning of this process that the IRA would have to go away they hoped to hold onto it for the greatest political advantage they could achieve by making them go away

the threat of the PIRA is gone so there is no political advantage in holding on to it the Brits the unionists the Irish government all know the IRA cannot go back to war so there is no incentive on them to make any further compromise to achieve an end to the IRA
at this stage the IRA is holding up an agreement so they have to go

as ted said time to hold and a time to fold

cdebru

irish1 wrote:

I welcome this speech, I just hope the IRA repsond in a positive manner and we can move forward.

well there are only two possibilities

1 the IRA respond positively which is what i would imagine is going to happen
probably to be announced just in time to convince middle class nationalists for the election

2 the IRA refuse at which stage there is a seperation which i dont believe is possible but might also play well for middle class nationalists

colster

irish1 wrote:

I welcome this speech, I just hope the IRA repsond in a positive manner and we can move forward.

I'd be very surprised if they didn't.
I think Adams is setting the tone for the disbandment and maximising the potential electoral gain.

bonkey

Just saw the tail-end of an interview with a Sinn Fein bod on CNN....the comment I found interesting was that he hedged when asked what he thought the IRA reaction/response would be.

He basically said "we expect there will be a response, in due course". When pushed, he claimed that this wasn't an election tactic, but also said that he couldn't say whether it would be before or after the election when the IRA would give their response.

This just rings a bit hollow to me. I hope I'm wrong, and it is a signal that we'll move on to the next stage of the game (where someone else will hold up significant progress for some other reason) but I've a feeling that any answer will not be anything more than a placatory statement which will then be pointed at by some saying "empty words", and by others saying "this is exactly what you asked of them, and now they've given it, it yet again gets dismissed as insufficient" and that we'll start singing a Del Amitri track....

jc

Sand

Im sorry, it sounds like pure waffle to me and on top of that a dire case of multiple personality disorder. When or if SF/IRA decide to disband their military and demonstrate through 0 punishment beatings and 0 paramilitary activity, then Ill believe it. Until then its only the same old "historic moment" ****e warmed up and served up. SF/IRA havent even stopped recruiting given the age profile of O Snodaighs punishment gang. That for me demonstrates the truth behind the soundbites.

And theres no worries about any reaction from the Army Council. I really really doubt Gerry does his politicking on the Council via the media. There are two ways this will play out:

A) The Army Council issues some waffly statement in return. Everyone hails SF/IRA for their heroic decision not to kill people officially. Meanwhile, they just keep going on doing what theyre doing already. Punishment beatings continue, criminal activity continues, recruitment continues, training continues. The same wilful ignorance on the part of the media and commentators continues as they desperately strive to convince themselves the IRA really has gone away you know.

The Army Council denounces Adams. A crisis is stage managed and SF is officially decoupled from the IRA, which insists it is still going to keep to the ceasefire. Meanwhile, they just keep doing what theyre doing already. Punishment beatings continue, criminal activity continues, recruitment continues, training continues. Only now SF can pretend it has nothing to do with the IRA, which theyve plenty of practise at.

cdebru

Sand wrote:

Im sorry, it sounds like pure waffle to me and on top of that a dire case of multiple personality disorder. When or if SF/IRA decide to disband their military and demonstrate through 0 punishment beatings and 0 paramilitary activity, then Ill believe it. Until then its only the same old "historic moment" ****e warmed up and served up. SF/IRA havent even stopped recruiting given the age profile of O Snodaighs punishment gang. That for me demonstrates the truth behind the soundbites.

And theres no worries about any reaction from the Army Council. I really really doubt Gerry does his politicking on the Council via the media. There are two ways this will play out:

A) The Army Council issues some waffly statement in return. Everyone hails SF/IRA for their heroic decision not to kill people officially. Meanwhile, they just keep going on doing what theyre doing already. Punishment beatings continue, criminal activity continues, recruitment continues, training continues. The same wilful ignorance on the part of the media and commentators continues as they desperately strive to convince themselves the IRA really has gone away you know.

The Army Council denounces Adams. A crisis is stage managed and SF is officially decoupled from the IRA, which insists it is still going to keep to the ceasefire. Meanwhile, they just keep doing what theyre doing already. Punishment beatings continue, criminal activity continues, recruitment continues, training continues. Only now SF can pretend it has nothing to do with the IRA, which theyve plenty of practise at.

it does not matter if they still recruited before/if they decide to disband they are on ceasefire that does not mean they can not recruit or even train neither of those would be abreach of ceasefire

if they announce they are disbanding and they are still active recruiting or anything else that would be different

logonapr

Considering that Gerry Adams & Martin McGuiness are both on the IRA army council wouldn't it have been nice if he went on to answer his own questions that he posed to himself, McGuiness, Ferris etc.

Interestingly he makes no mention of the whole criminality issue so presumably it will still be OK to rob banks, kill people for alleged insults in bars, run protection rackets, run smuggling rackets etc.

Nobody seriously thinks the IRA have the appetite to return to military action and considering that much more lucrative occupations have been found by many of the 'volunteers' I can confidently predict that Gerry will respond positively to himself.

cdebru

bonkey wrote:

Just saw the tail-end of an interview with a Sinn Fein bod on CNN....the comment I found interesting was that he hedged when asked what he thought the IRA reaction/response would be.

He basically said "we expect there will be a response, in due course". When pushed, he claimed that this wasn't an election tactic, but also said that he couldn't say whether it would be before or after the election when the IRA would give their response.

This just rings a bit hollow to me. I hope I'm wrong, and it is a signal that we'll move on to the next stage of the game (where someone else will hold up significant progress for some other reason) but I've a feeling that any answer will not be anything more than a placatory statement which will then be pointed at by some saying "empty words", and by others saying "this is exactly what you asked of them, and now they've given it, it yet again gets dismissed as insufficient" and that we'll start singing a Del Amitri track....

jc

well i would be shocked if adams does not already know what the answer is going to be of course sinn fein are not going to say what that is or upstage the IRA by hinting at what it is going to be

i would expect the answer before the 5th of may possibly in the last week of the election for maximum impact

if the answer is going to be negative i would expect it sooner to allow SF to decouple as sand puts it before the election


and it is most definitely an election tactic
perhaps not one they would have wanted to play but events have forced them to

Villain

IMO there is 2 angles on this, maybe more, there are the people who believe that Gerry Adams is not a member of the Army Council but has a strong influence over the members, then you have the people who can't seperate Sinn Fein and the IRA so they believe Adams & McGuinness control both organisations.

If you believe the latter you will think why is Adams talking to himself and your sure that the IRA will respond by supporting Adams call for peaceful and democratic means to be the only way forward.

However if like me you believe that while Adams has influence over the Army Council he doesn't sit on it or control it, and so wonder what the IRA will do, IMO it really depends on the leading members of that organisation. Will they refuse to decommision and cease all activites until they have a complete deal in front of them? or will they take this step to bring the peace process back on track.

I believe that the IRA will give a commitement to put all arms beyond use and cease all activites but only in return for certain things, I really can't see the IRA giving up all their bargaining chips until they are certain of something in return. IMO the IRA would know that if they do that Paisley will be on every news channel declaring the Unionists have won and the Republicans have lost and while that will not only make the IRA sick it could lead to a major split where large members of the Provos could join the RIRA or CIRA.

If the IRA could make sure the killers of Robert McCartney are brought to justice (through the crown courts) and put 50% of all remaining arms are put beyond use with a commitment to decommision the other 50% within a certain time frame then I think we could see an historic deal being brokered.

I think it's interesting that Mr McDowell hasn't being shouting down Sinn Fein after this statement, perhaps Bertie has for once managed to control his Minister.

Villain

logonapr wrote:

Considering that Gerry Adams & Martin McGuiness are both on the IRA army council wouldn't it have been nice if he went on to answer his own questions that he posed to himself, McGuiness, Ferris etc.

In Your opinion! there is no factual evidence to support your claim.

Sorry to be so exact but it just bugs me that people try and pass these claims off as a fact.

logonapr

irish1 wrote:

In Your opinion! there is no factual evidence to support your claim.

Sorry to be so exact but it just bugs me that people try and pass these claims off as a fact.

The weight of circumstantial evidence is collosal. Bottom line is that given a choice between believing Adams & our police & government (despite their faults) I know which I would tend towards.

Its not as if Adams has a record for being truthful.
As recently as the NI bank raid he has no doubt that IRA/Sinn Féin were not involved despite some of the traceable money being located with his fellow travellers.

I also cannot prove that Robert McCartney was murdered by IRA thugs. Perhaps it was suicide seeing that all the Sinn Fein people saw nothing that night.
Despite all the rhetoric & posturing not one has given a detailed statement of events. They either saw nothing or alternatively present themselves for questioning and then sit in silence not answering any questions.

I have no problem in admitting that I do not differentiate between the leadership of the IRA & that of Sinn Féin and fear for my country if we were ever to see these thugs in power and running their rackets & intimidating people.
I simply do not want to share their vision of a Free Ireland if freedom to speak as exemplified by the citizenry of Short Strand is what we can all aspire towards.

flogen

All I read there was something from a master of realpolitiking. If the IRA were to come out and agree to Gerry Adam's wishes, what would that mean? He hasn't asked them to disband, decommission or anything, just support the peace process (ok, that would involve decommissioning). So where would we be? Well to me we'd be no further than we were before P O Neill told us the IRA were pulling out of the decommissioning process. We'd have the IRA saying they support the peace process but aren't happy with the details and Sinn Fein trying to argue their point with whoever will listen (and if soundings from Bertie and Paisley are to be taken as gospel it won't be anyone important).

this line: "That agreement perished on the rock of unionist intransigence. The shortsightedness of the two governments compounded the difficulties."
Interests me. He's basically saying that the Unionists were the unreasonable ones, and the two governments were no help either. Fair enough, so where now? The Unionists have out-done the Republicans in shifting blame, and while they did have some weight on their shoulders over the pictures issue the following events showed that their scepticism (however genuine) was well founded.
If the IRA and Sinn Fein had any sense they'd realise that agreeing to Paisleys demands would be the best thing to do, they'd have the higher ground and the DUP would either have to stick to their word and deliver power sharing or else retreat and show themselves to be liars.

aidan_walsh

mike65 wrote:

"time for peace time to go"

Until I realised that there was a comma missing, I was wondering where you got a declaration of war out of it Whoops...

BuffyBot

He basically said "we expect there will be a response, in due course". When pushed, he claimed that this wasn't an election tactic, but also said that he couldn't say whether it would be before or after the election when the IRA would give their response.

To me, at this moment in time, it's just more empty (but amazingly well timed considering the proximity of the elections and continuing media coverage of the McCartney issue) piece of SF fluff. Lovely sentiments, but little substance. The most interesting piece of this all will be the response of the IRA itself, and what that will contain.

I hope that I'll be surprised, but I'm not holding my breath

Sand

if they announce they are disbanding and they are still active recruiting or anything else that would be different

No, it would be typical of them. Their ceasefire declared an end to all military activity. More importantly, because military leaves a lot of scope for wordplay (Id argue that the word military doesnt cover any of the SF/IRA actions afterall), they specifically said

It is our desire to significantly contribute to the creation of a climate which will encourage [inclusive negotiations]

The continuation of recruitment, training, punishment beatings and killings is a breach of their undertaking to contribute to the create of a climate which will encourage negotiations. In the GFA they signed up to decommissioning within 2 years of the GFA being accepted. We're still waiting. Hence, the dominance of the DUP over the more moderate UUP.

SF/IRA are near pathological liars. They cannot be trusted in the slightest. In any deal every stage of it will have to be definitly and clearly linked to scheduled action on their part. That includes 0 punishment beatings and 0 paramilitary activity over an extended period of time after they claim to have disbanded. Theyve demonstrated what their word alone is worth, nothing.

If you believe the latter you will think why is Adams talking to himself and your sure that the IRA will respond by supporting Adams call for peaceful and democratic means to be the only way forward.

Irish1, you do not credit Adams and co with the proper level of deviousness. Why is SF/IRA getting slammed these days? The actions of the IRA. It would be difficult to disband the IRA without alienating a large group of heavily armed scumbags. What to do, what to do. I know, lets declare that SF and the IRA are seperate! Wait, no one believes that. Darn.

Wait, lets stage manage an argument and a lovers tiff. I think its quite possible well see SF and the IRA trading unfriendly statements , and eventually declaring their mutual dislike. Hooray, now when SF says they dont have anything to do with the IRA theyll be able to point to all the bitter statements.

But in reality, it will be same old, same old. SF/IRA will still have the ability to embrace thuggish violence, but they wont have to take responsibility for it.

put 50% of all remaining arms are put beyond use with a commitment to decommision the other 50% within a certain time frame then I think we could see an historic deal being brokered.

Oh yeah, like the promise they made before to do it within 2 years. Sure why wouldnt you trust their word? Nah, dont even bother with the 50% upfront. Im sure theyre good for it.
Seriously, do you expect Unionists to accept that as the basis of a deal?

In Your opinion! there is no factual evidence to support your claim.

There is plenty. You refuse to accept or counter it. You simply try to pretend it doesnt exist. I have posted it several times and you have never, ever been able to counter it.

DapperGent

I wonder how long he'll wait before drafting the response.

cdebru

Sand wrote:

No, it would be typical of them. Their ceasefire declared an end to all military activity. More importantly, because military leaves a lot of scope for wordplay (Id argue that the word military doesnt cover any of the SF/IRA actions afterall), they specifically said .

actually they said

there will be a complete cessation of military operations

Sand wrote:

The continuation of recruitment, training, punishment beatings and killings is a breach of their undertaking to contribute to the create of a climate which will encourage negotiations. In the GFA they signed up to decommissioning within 2 years of the GFA being accepted. We're still waiting. Hence, the dominance of the DUP over the more moderate UUP..

it is your opinion that recruiting training punishment beatings etc are a breach of its ceasefire



IMO military operations would be attacks on crown forces and loyalist paramilitaries
armies dont stop training and recruiting because they are on ceasefire or not engaged in a war


the unionist people are quite capable of voting for whoever they like it is also true that if the UUP had been a more pro agreement party than a weaker than the DUP anti agreement party things may have been different as well

Sand wrote:

SF/IRA are near pathological liars. They cannot be trusted in the slightest. In any deal every stage of it will have to be definitly and clearly linked to scheduled action on their part. That includes 0 punishment beatings and 0 paramilitary activity over an extended period of time after they claim to have disbanded. Theyve demonstrated what their word alone is worth, nothing..

the IRA did not sign up to anything all the parties agreed to use their influence

All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.

Sand wrote:

Irish1, you do not credit Adams and co with the proper level of deviousness. Why is SF/IRA getting slammed these days? The actions of the IRA. It would be difficult to disband the IRA without alienating a large group of heavily armed scumbags. What to do, what to do. I know, lets declare that SF and the IRA are seperate! Wait, no one believes that. Darn.

Wait, lets stage manage an argument and a lovers tiff. I think its quite possible well see SF and the IRA trading unfriendly statements , and eventually declaring their mutual dislike. Hooray, now when SF says they dont have anything to do with the IRA theyll be able to point to all the bitter statements.

But in reality, it will be same old, same old. SF/IRA will still have the ability to embrace thuggish violence, but they wont have to take responsibility for it.



Oh yeah, like the promise they made before to do it within 2 years. Sure why wouldnt you trust their word? Nah, dont even bother with the 50% upfront. Im sure theyre good for it.
Seriously, do you expect Unionists to accept that as the basis of a deal?



There is plenty. You refuse to accept or counter it. You simply try to pretend it doesnt exist. I have posted it several times and you have never, ever been able to counter it.

I suggest sand that we wait and see no point making up your mind now what is definitely going to happen

as i have already pointed the IRA never promised nor did anyone else to decommission within 2 years it was a fudge on using influence and it was up to all parties to use influence



and just for the record the GFA was not just an agreement on decommissioning although it is the only aspect that seems to interest you

we are still waiting for the full implementation of the
patten report on policing
removal of security installations
normalisation of security
the reduction of the numbers and role of the Armed Forces deployed in Northern Ireland to levels compatible with a normal peaceful society
changes in the justice system
prisoner releases

the institutions set up by the GFA


we need the whole GFA implemented not just the parts that apppeal to you

Mighty_Mouse

Lord god!

- Movement on agreed decommissioning procedures,
- Movement on the release of certain prisoners
- Movement on support for policing
etc

- and now effin disbandment!!

The above in the context of NOTHING been given on the other side!!!

Yet people can still come in here and crib!

Gerry Adams has move the IRA to the brink of disbandment in a situation where, no political pressure is put on Loyalist parimilitaries to disband, investigations into police collusion, MI5 Executions are being obstruction, policing reform is incomplete, unionists support of the GFA is zero, political support of the GFA from Brits and Republic is based on public opinion, demilitarisation is incomplete etc etc etc

At this stage I can honestly say, I dont know what more Sinn Fein can offer at the negotiation table.

Tar and Feathers anyone?

Sherlock

DapperGent wrote:

I wonder how long he'll wait before drafting the response.

I'm sure hes already agreed the reply with the lads, its a question of when they release it.

SF/IRA have had all their prisoners released (except the McCabe killers), military towers have been taken down all around the North, not all but then the CIRA and RIRA are still active. The PSNI has been established with the requirement that all new recruitment will include 50% catholics. Cross border bodies were set up, something unionists always opposed.
And what have SF/IRA given in return?...they've stopped killing people, great...well unless you don't count drug dealers or people who cross them in some way. Still recruiting, why unless they plan on returning to full scale violence. Still keeping observations on politicians here and drawing up dossiers of their movements, why?.
Loyalists paramilitaries have no elected politicians representing them hence they can have no sanction imposed on them by Governments and must be dealt with by the police.

Blub2k4

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Lord god!

- Movement on agreed decommissioning procedures,
- Movement on the release of certain prisoners
- Movement on support for policing
etc

- and now effin disbandment!!

The above in the context of NOTHING been given on the other side!!!

Yet people can still come in here and crib!

Gerry Adams has move the IRA to the brink of disbandment in a situation where, no political pressure is put on Loyalist parimilitaries to disband, investigations into police collusion, MI5 Executions are being obstruction, policing reform is incomplete, unionists support of the GFA is zero, political support of the GFA from Brits and Republic is based on public opinion, demilitarisation is incomplete etc etc etc

At this stage I can honestly say, I dont know what more Sinn Fein can offer at the negotiation table.

Tar and Feathers anyone?

You're spot on, I think some people here wish to see a "pythonesque" scene of every sympathiser out on the street with a plank hitting themselves in the head and with each blow shouting " we were wrong to ever stand up for Irish rights, we were wrong to ever stand up for Irish rights...." ad infinitum.

Mighty_Mouse

I'm sure hes already agreed the reply with the lads, its a question of when they release it.

You now have a problem with Gerry Adams sounding out the IRA's thoughts on disbandment!!

SF/IRA have had all their prisoners released (except the McCabe killers),

Are the Castlerea IRA men no longer in prison? Were they not convicted before 1998.

military towers have been taken down all around the North, not all but then the CIRA and RIRA are still active.

as opposed to full normalisation as promised. THE CIRA, RIRA !!! give me a break.

The PSNI has been established with the requirement that all new recruitment will include 50% catholics

Bravo, now wheres the rest of the requirements.

Cross border bodies were set up, something unionists always opposed.

Um!! Oh! so the unionists have had to give also. Your point?

Loyalists paramilitaries have no elected politicians representing them hence they can have no sanction imposed on them by Governments and must be dealt with by the police.

So you dont want to see senior unionist politicians actively calling for disbandment of loyalist paramilitaries?

bonkey

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

- and now effin disbandment!!

Where?

Yet people can still come in here and crib!

Yes. They can, and indeed have very valid reasons to do so.

This is far from the first time that SF or the IRA have made statements that stop short of what is being demanded, but which are billed as significant. Time after time after time after time after time we find out that what was said was never meant to be taken at face value, but rather should be tested against whatever happens, and if the words can fit, then thats clearly what was meant.

Gerry Adams has move the IRA to the brink of disbandment

I'll believe that when there's actual disbandment. Until then, thats nothing more than an unsubstantiable claim.

Although its interesting to see that a sentence ago it was "disbandment", and now its already only "the brink of disbandment". What next?

in a situation where ...

Lets shorten that. What you're basically saying is "in a situation where the Republican's aren't solely to blame", and asking "why should Republican's right their wrongs when no-one else is doing likewise".

See - if you cut away all the pretty wording, and ask it that way....the answer (to me, at least) seems self-evident.

Besides...no-one has claimed the Republicans aren't solely to blame. They are root cause of the most significant stuimbling blocks at this point in time, which is why they are getting the focus.

If someone is dying of a severed carotid, and has hypothermia...which do you deal with first? Does dealing with the horrific neck wound mean that you're saying hypothermia isn't a problem, and doesn't need to be dealt with?

At this stage I can honestly say, I dont know what more Sinn Fein can offer at the negotiation table.

An example that would show that they're no longer willing to be one of the hypocrites alongside everynoe else, but rather are actually going to do what they set out to....thus putting everyone else on the back foot?

Lord no...that would never work. They should demand everyone else's hypocracy is dealt with first before they do anyth....oh, hang on...that what's happennig. Its what you're effectively insinuating in your post!

Tar and Feathers anyone?

No thanks. I'd rather one party or faction - and I'll be honest, I don't care whether its Republican, Unionist, the Irish government or the English government - actually start actively setting an example for all the others by showing that it is willing to move forward and fulfill its obligations without requiring that everyone else do so with theirs first.

Hell, I'd settle for anything that showed that anyone involved in the entire process actually showed they understood the real meaning of the word compromise.

jc

Blub2k4

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,1454255,00.html

The Guardian wrote:

12.15pm
IRA responds to Adams appeal

Mark Oliver and agencies
Thursday April 7, 2005

The IRA said today it was giving "due consideration" to the appeal by the Sinn Féin president, Gerry Adams, for it to fully embrace politics and abandon the armed struggle.

In a brief statement released to the Press Association news agency under the IRA's pen name of P O'Neill, the Republican group said: "The leadership of the IRA was given notice of the appeal by Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams. We have noted his comments. The IRA will give his appeal due consideration and will respond in due course."

In a speech yesterday in west Belfast that was described as extraordinary by analysts, Mr Adams said that, while in the past he had defended the IRA's right to engage in armed struggle, there was now an alternative in "building political support for republican and democratic objectives".

He appealed to the IRA "to fully embrace and accept this alternative", but did not go as far as calling for the IRA to disband.

Republican sources said last night the Sinn Féin leader was attempting to urge the IRA to consider its own future ahead of any negotiations which could start up after the general election, possibly in the autumn.

However, unionists have responded sceptically, noting the statement was delivered on the second day of a general election campaign in which Sinn Féin hopes to assert its dominance over the rival nationalist party, the SDLP, which it has eclipsed in recent elections.

The SDLP's leader, Mark Durkan, questioned whether Mr Adams's statement was sincere and today said his was the only party in the province with proposals that would bring a quick end to direct rule in the province.

The Stormont power-sharing assembly, which was created after the 1998 Good Friday agreement, was suspended in October 2002 after claims about a republican spying ring at the Northern Ireland Office.

Today Mr Durkan told the ePolitix website: "If people want to return to the agreement then they should return the SDLP in greater strength. History shows that when the SDLP vote goes up then we all make progress and that when the more extreme problem parties make gains we all stay stuck."

The Democratic Unionist party leader, Ian Paisley, yesterday dismissed Mr Adams's speech as a "political stunt". He said: "There must be a complete and total abandonment of IRA/Sinn Féin and that's not going to happen. The DUP won't be back in any negotiating table. "

Northern Ireland's peace process stalled at the end of last year over whether the IRA would allow weapons decommissioning to be photographed. The republican movement was then thrown into crisis by allegations the IRA carried out December's £26.5m Northern Bank raid in Belfast and was involved in the murder of Catholic man Robert McCartney in January.

Pressure has been mounting on the IRA to abandon violence and crime and disband. Last month Mr Adams had a cool reception during his annual St Patrick's Day trip to boost support in the US, where Mr McCartney's sisters were, in contrast, welcomed by the US president, George Bush, and other leaders.

Earlier today, Sinn Féin's vice-president, Pat Doherty, said Mr Adams's speech had prompted debate within the movement. Speaking in London, Mr Doherty said: "This is a huge issue ... everybody who has lived through the conflict in the north knows the reality of violence [from] the British army and the unionist death squads. Many republicans and nationalists see the IRA as their defenders.

"There will be a rational intellectual debate but there will be an element of emotion in all of this and it will take time for all of that to work its way through."

He denied that Mr Adams had made his statement in an attempt to shore up support for Sinn Féin among nationalists following the murder of Mr McCartney and ahead of the general election on May 5.

Yesterday, Mr Adams said he had defended the armed struggle in the past because, at the time, "there was no alternative for those who would not bend the knee, or turn a blind eye to oppression, or for those who wanted a national republic ... [but now] the way forward is by building political support for republican and democratic objectives across Ireland and by winning support for these goals internationally."

Downing Street said the statement was "significant" and hoped it was the way forward "to peaceful and democratic means".

However, the Irish prime minister, Bertie Ahern, said: "Nothing less than a complete and decisive end to all IRA activity and capability will be acceptable if there is to be any prospect of achieving inclusive politics in Northern Ireland."

Well there you have it the IRA are considering a response to Gerry Adams appeal, let's hope the outcome is positive.

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

it is your opinion that recruiting training punishment beatings etc are a breach of its ceasefire

All of the above are "operations", ie. they are planned, focused, and carried out over a duration of time to achieve a desired result.

Whilst recruitment could be considered a grey area, training & punishment beatings are most definitely black and white.

IMO military operations would be attacks on crown forces and loyalist paramilitaries
armies dont stop training and recruiting because they are on ceasefire or not engaged in a war

Actually, military operations would be any operation carried out in the name of the entity in question. A punishment beating is carried out in the name of the IRA and all involved are threatened with reprisals by the IRA, just like a bomb blast is carried out in the name of the IRA. There. Is. No. Difference.

I suggest sand that we wait and see no point making up your mind now what is definitely going to happen

That is the only thing so far that you have ever written that I would agree with. I will, to quote the phrase, believe it when it happens. Until then, it's the same old sh*t swallowed and expelled time and again.

as i have already pointed the IRA never promised nor did anyone else to decommission within 2 years it was a fudge on using influence and it was up to all parties to use influence

Ummm, would you care to point out the clause in the GFA where that was stated?

and just for the record the GFA was not just an agreement on decommissioning although it is the only aspect that seems to interest you

Interested in because it's highly relevant and a core area whicha great deal many parties are interested in seeing resolved sooner rather than later.

we need the whole GFA implemented not just the parts that apppeal to you

Which would you consider the more serious .... a body to be implemented, or disarming an active private army accountable to nobody and shouldn't exist in the first place?

Would you negotiate in good faith with someone whilst they're pointing a gun at you? Or would you tell them to lose the gun first?

Sand

it is your opinion that recruiting training punishment beatings etc are a breach of its ceasefire

As I already noted, the term "military" leaves a lot of scope for wordplay. It can mean whatever SF/IRA find it convenient to mean. There is certainly no definition of it that I would feel applies to any action undertaken by SF/IRA so it could technically be absolutely meaningless.

This is the sort of evasiveness and non-commital attitude towards the peace process that has led to the provos squandering whatever creditibility they might ever have had. If SF/IRA can interpret an undertaking to maintain a *complete* cessation of "military" operations, and a wish to contribute to an atmosphere aidding negotiation as allowing them to continue recruiting, training, procuring arms, engaging in punishment beatings, murdering people who cross and various criminal activities then whose to say what their interpretation of disbandment will allow them to carry out?

the IRA did not sign up to anything all the parties agreed to use their influence

Again, another example of SF/IRA's attitude to commitments and agreements - they cannot be trusted and any concessions to them will have to be linked to specific, verifiable actions on their part. The GFA shows that creative ambiguity such as the above is not tolerable anymore.

we need the whole GFA implemented not just the parts that apppeal to you

Yeah, so SF/IRA should decommission, disband, engage with policing, and wholly commit themsevles in *deed* to peaceful legitimate politics! All other participants have done far more to fufill their obligations under the GFA than the provos have. For them to whinge about others inactivity when they are the worst offenders by far is surreal. Dont they recognise that the proccess has died because of them, not anyone else?

You're spot on, I think some people here wish to see a "pythonesque" scene of every sympathiser out on the street with a plank hitting themselves in the head and with each blow shouting " we were wrong to ever stand up for Irish rights, we were wrong to ever stand up for Irish rights...." ad infinitum.

SF/IRA never, ever waged their terrorist campaign for Irish rights. Never, ever, ever. It was the civil rights movement that attracted attention to the plight of Northern Catholics and forced reform that was was far faster accomplished than after SF/IRA started leaving bombs in pubs and throwing nail bombs into resteraunts and kidnapping families to force fathers/husbands to drive truck bombs to check points on suicide missions.

SF/IRA piggybacked on the civil rights movement, but it has never been interested in anything other than a United Ireland - civil rights are inconsequential to them. All that has ever been important to them is destroying the border no matter how much blood is shed.

Stabshauptmann

Sand wrote:

Im sorry, it sounds like pure waffle to me and on top of that a dire case of multiple personality disorder. When or if SF/IRA decide to disband their military and demonstrate through 0 punishment beatings and 0 paramilitary activity, then Ill believe it. Until then its only the same old "historic moment" ****e warmed up and served up. SF/IRA havent even stopped recruiting given the age profile of O Snodaighs punishment gang. That for me demonstrates the truth behind the soundbites.

And theres no worries about any reaction from the Army Council. I really really doubt Gerry does his politicking on the Council via the media. There are two ways this will play out:

A) The Army Council issues some waffly statement in return. Everyone hails SF/IRA for their heroic decision not to kill people officially. Meanwhile, they just keep going on doing what theyre doing already. Punishment beatings continue, criminal activity continues, recruitment continues, training continues. The same wilful ignorance on the part of the media and commentators continues as they desperately strive to convince themselves the IRA really has gone away you know.

The Army Council denounces Adams. A crisis is stage managed and SF is officially decoupled from the IRA, which insists it is still going to keep to the ceasefire. Meanwhile, they just keep doing what theyre doing already. Punishment beatings continue, criminal activity continues, recruitment continues, training continues. Only now SF can pretend it has nothing to do with the IRA, which theyve plenty of practise at.

So there is no "C" where the IRA eventually disbands and the remains (criminal thugs) are destroyed by state agencies since they no longer have any support

Mighty_Mouse

Where?

Is that not what we are talking about here?There is currently talk of disbanding the IRA in a situation where many MAJOR issues still remain for republicans. ie. policing republican areas, democratic representation in a working lasting government. Rather than minor side-issues which can be sorted out once the IRA disbands.

Yes. They can, and indeed have very valid reasons to do so.

Did I say different? I have a problem with constant criticism of republicans in the light of statements like last night.Your bloody right I'm gonna criticise people who dont attach relevance to it. A lot different than saying they dont have a right to dismiss it though.

This is far from the first time that SF or the IRA have made statements that stop short of what is being demanded, but which are billed as significant.

Do you actually believe that the answer to the norths problems lies in Po'Neill reading a statement written by Tony Blair or Ian Paisley! Never gonna happen. The IRA will use their own words if the time comes.

I'll believe that when there's actual disbandment

Fair enough. I'll believe the norths problems are been resolved when I see a maintained government and the british soldiers leave. When people in both communities feel the same about contacting the police etc

Although its interesting to see that a sentence ago it was "disbandment", and now its already only "the brink of disbandment". What next?

Take it in it's context bonkey.

why should Republican's right their wrongs when no-one else is doing likewise

Suppose it depends on perceptions of what is wrong.

If someone is dying of a severed carotid, and has hypothermia...which do you deal with first? Does dealing with the horrific neck wound mean that you're saying hypothermia isn't a problem, and doesn't need to be dealt with?

I disagree with your analogy bonkey. I would see the issues I outlined as being equally important. Because in reality they are, to both communities. You can't solve one before the other. The premise of the GFA was to have "new beginnings" together, at the same time.

It's the whole decommissioning situation again. Whats stopping the IRA "reinstating" tomorrow, even if they agree to disband?
Does the solution to the north not lie in providing the conditions for guns not firing again - decommissioning, military action - disbandment.

What are we gonna have next, "making sure they're gone" periods or something.

An example that would show that they're no longer willing to be one of the hypocrites alongside everynoe else, but rather are actually going to do what they set out to....thus putting everyone else on the back foot?

"
If we have a ceasefire, the unionist will have no excuses..............if we decommission, the brits will have no excuses, ..........if we disband, everyone will have no excuses.........."""

same repeated crap. I'm happy for the IRA to disband if it was part of developing a society that was going to cultivate lasting equality. <apologies for the pretty words> rather than continual persecution of republicans.

I want unionists to feel welcome in a United Ireland. So the IRA could never exist in the politic struggle for the above ideal. At disbandment republicans have nothing to bargain with. They will have give away all their chips.

In this situation the ball is completely in the hands of the unionists/brits. If they fail to deliver within a decade or so......................there will be a new batch of 20 yr old republicans with ideals of having a say in social and economic issues. (and a united Ireland). I just can't trust the brits or the unionst to prevent that situation happening by pro-actively developing a lasting government.

bonkey

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Is that not what we are talking about here?

I dunno. I coulda sworn the topic we were discussing was a call from Adams that the IRA denounce violence completely. I would go so far as to say that every single political commentary I heard regarding it onthe day in question mentioned that he stopped short of demanding actual disbandment.

So, I woul dhave to say no, it most definitely is not what we are talking about here.

There is currently talk of disbanding the IRA

There may well be. There's been talk of same by all non-republican factions involved in the GFA, as well as countless other groups who feel the need to stick their nose in too. What there hasn't been is talk from Sinn Fein or the IRA suggesting or saying that its time for this to happen.

Did I say different?

I'm sorry. I thought you had a point to make when you were saying that people came in here to crib about Republicanism. If it wasn't that they shouldn't be cribbing, what - exactly - was the point? I seem to have missed it.

I have a problem with constant criticism of republicans in the light of statements like last night.

Why not? They deserve it. They have a history of making "important" statements like the one of last night, only to find wriggle-room in the words used at a later date whenever they are asked to live up to them. When Sinn Fein show an ability to make statements and negotiations in good faith, then I - and hopefully others - will attach some import to their statements when they make them, rather than waiting to see what actions follow, because at present thats the only reliable way of judging their apparent intent.

Your bloody right I'm gonna criticise people who dont attach relevance to it.

On what grounds?

What statements of Sinn Fein in the past can you point to that they have stuck to unequivocably? No wriggling? No introduction of ifs, buts, and maybes after the fact? No deciding that what they promised to do would now be dependant on others doing something else that was never included in the original claims.

When you have a group like SF with a history of maknig statements that you cannot judge at face value, how can you validly criticise someone for refusing to take a new statment at face value?

And isn't the timing amazing....just before an election, and just after Rvd. Paisley said that no matter what they did, he'd never speak to them. But its ok...Sinn Fein have said there isn't even a hint of electioneering involved...so that must also be true? Right?

Take it in it's context bonkey.

The context is Adam's speech. He didn't mention disbandment at all....yet you brought it up twice, and on each occasion offered a seperate description of what was happening : disbandment / being on the brink of disbandment.

Suppose it depends on perceptions of what is wrong. I disagree with your analogy bonkey.

You're entitled to, but whether you like it or not, the reality is that Sinn Fein and the IRA are currently the biggest obstacle which needs to be dealt with ebfore we can go anywhere, so thats where people's attention is focussed.

Now, you can argue that they weer manouevered into that position by an unsympathetic media, by a run of bad luck with events as they turned out, or for whatever reason you like, but right now they are the problem which needs to be fixed first.

You can't solve one before the other.

So, given that there's no movement from the Unionist side.....what does that logic say about Sinn Fein's latest staement, if not that its an empty gesture?

If you believe progress can only be achieved unilaterally, then you cannot logically believe that Sinn Fein actually offered anything other than empty platitudes in Adam's statement.

So it would seem you're either clarifynig that your position is illogical, or you're contradicting your own belief that its wrong to negatively pre-judge this statement of Adams'.

Whats stopping the IRA "reinstating" tomorrow, even if they agree to disband?

Nothing. So why don't they disband, and show the duplicity of those making the demands? For once, rather than looking for wriggle-room, or insisting that it be an inherent part of the agreement (a la the decomissioning negotiations), just do it. Just do whats asked, with no ifs, buts, or maybes. Just once.

If we have a ceasefire, the unionist will have no excuses..............

IIRC, they stopped quite short of saying that they'd never return to violence. Wriggle-room.

if we decommission, the brits will have no excuses,

But they negotiated a deal where they'd never have to reveal - even to the other side - what was decomissioned, and then hung everything on the use of the word "significant". Wriggle-room.

..........if we disband, everyone will have no excuses.........."""

I guess that would depend on how they disbanded. because I can only see it happening couched in terms of...you've guessed it...wriggle room.

same repeated crap.

Pretty much my assessment of both sides. I haven't seen anyone involved actually do anything original since the IRA caught everyone on the hop with their initial cease-fire which led to the second, and then to the GFA.

I'm happy for the IRA to disband if it was part of developing a society that was going to cultivate lasting equality.

Nice words...but its a chicken-and-egg situation. I can't see how you could even begin developing a society of lasting equality while anyone at the table has a private army sitting in the shadows behind them.

I want unionists to feel welcome in a United Ireland.

See that bit I was saying about understanding the term compromise? That sentence shows that your version of compromise is fundamentally incompatible with the version of compromise that those you would compromise with (i.e. the Unionists). Its the age old "we'll respect - but not grant - your wants, just as soon as you grant ours" approach to a settlement. And you know what....its never worked. Not once.

In this situation the ball is completely in the hands of the unionists/brits. If they fail to deliver within a decade or so......................

How is this anything other than an implicit admission that the IRA have not (and will not) put violence permanently behind them?

And yet you can suggest that even while making such predictions of how "well" they will stick to their word that it is unreasonable of others to do so with Adam's statement of yesterday?

I just can't trust the brits or the unionst....

But they should trust the people who will foster and engender this new batch of terrorists that you speak of?

I think you've made my point for me.

jc

Pal

.....

uberwolf

Pal wrote:

Gerry Adams & Martin McGuiness are both on the IRA army council

In your humble opinion? or have you got sources that you can provide. Just make it clear whether you are representing your beliefs, or otherwise.

Pal

<snip>

if you've a problem with a particular instance of moderation then PM the Mod in Question. I received 2 reports re: your post and non re: the other post - so it wasn't drawn to my attn. You were most likely seekign to stir - because if something had already been said - why repeat it? BTW this is rhetorical.

Mighty_Mouse

I'm sorry. I thought you had a point to make when you were saying that people came in here to crib about Republicanism. If it wasn't that they shouldn't be cribbing, what - exactly - was the point?

I dislike the fact that people crib about Republicans. I dont disagree with their right to do it. Are you arguing that you cannot separate the 2?

Why not? They deserve it

in your opinion. Which I fully support your right to express

They have a history of making "important" statements like the one of last night, only to find wriggle-room in the words used at a later date whenever they are asked to live up to them.

Am I presuming correctly that we are talking about ceasefire, decommission, statements etc here? Or are there particular statements you wish to point out.?

What statements of Sinn Fein in the past can you point to that they have stuck to unequivocably?

the onus is on you here bonkey to provide examples

And isn't the timing amazing....just before an election

and just after the peace process came to a grinding halt with no foreseeable way forward, of course.! Would you prefer if they waited until after the election? Anyways what’s the problem with SF putting their best face forward into an election? How can a political party be criticised for trying to win an election. Unless of course they don’t mean what they say. But then that’s where you and I disagree bonkey.

the reality is that Sinn Fein and the IRA are currently the biggest obstacle which needs to be dealt with ebfore we can go anywhere

Really? Whats the reality for republicans in south-armagh or west-belfast so? Whats the reality for people who still dont have a police force or a right to elect political representative that can affect change in their favour?

so thats where people's attention is focussed

where the Irish independent is focused etc

If you believe progress can only be achieved unilaterally, then you cannot logically believe that Sinn Fein actually offered anything other than empty platitudes in Adam's statement.

it's what makes Adams statement so admirable IMO.

So it would seem you're either clarifynig that your position is illogical, or you're contradicting your own belief that its wrong to negatively pre-judge this statement of Adams'

Fantastic! We've actually reached the stage where the argument for unilateral movement by both sides is no longer a relevant one! It's a case of republicans go first now!!! Look at the big picture Bonkey. Its a case of coordinating the implementation of the GFA. Ideally I would like to see police reform , demilitarisation, investigations into collusion etc completed before the IRA disband and remove the obstacle to government <obstacle perceived at this moment in time until unionists think of something better>

or insisting that it be an inherent part of the agreement

does anyone else here see a problem with the argument that SF are wrong for insisting that we stick to the agreement. Emphasis on agreement!!

Just do whats asked, with no ifs, buts, or maybes. Just once.

you know what, your dead right Bonkey. The world is black and white. Actually why cant the brits just get the fcuk out! That would solve it. I mean its such a simple solution.

IIRC, they stopped quite short of saying that they'd never return to violence.

So you disagree with process? You wanted the IRA to move from war one day to complete disbandment the next! Fine. If that’s your opinion. Bit unrealistic IMO but I support your right .......

But they negotiated a deal where they'd never have to reveal - even to the other side - what was decomissioned,

emphasis on "negotiated" and "deal". You left out the independent respected international evaluation part.

I guess that would depend on how they disbanded.

The IRA are not going to read out a statement written by unionists. Forget about it.

Nice words...but its a chicken-and-egg situation. I can't see how you could even begin developing a society of lasting equality while anyone at the table has a private army sitting in the shadows behind them.

I completely agree. As long as you agree that you cant develop a lasting society without a police force etc..............

See that bit I was saying about understanding the term compromise? That sentence shows that your version of compromise is fundamentally incompatible with the version of compromise that those you would compromise with

In our "lasting society" im 100% entitled to hold the ideal of a united Ireland. Just as unionists are entitled to want the North to stay separate. I don’t see where the confusion is bonkey. P.D's want privatisation, labour don't. They can still sit in government together.

How is this anything other than an implicit admission that the IRA have not (and will not) put violence permanently behind them?

It's reality Bonkey. You cannot ever negotiate truly permanent cessation of violence in the north. Not with Republicans, not with loyalists. All you can do is provide the circumstances where people have an option other than violence. Its why a "lasting" society operates as a democracy.

But they should trust the people who will foster and engender this new batch of terrorists that you speak of?

They can trust the current "batch" because the current "batch" is giving their word not to return to violence under any circumstances. Therefore the whole "batch" up north have only a window to establish democracy IMO

bonkey

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

the onus is on you here bonkey to provide examples

Your clarification of what the "permanancy" of what the cease-fire means would seem to suggest that you're simply closing your eyes to the examples that abound.

and just after the peace process came to a grinding halt with no foreseeable way forward, of course.!

The peace-process has been ground to a halt for quite a while now. Its not like Adams could make an announcement on something which wasn't an issue.

I'm suggesting that it may not be coincidental that this announcement arrived just as the electoral jostling starts, and perfectly timed to act as a counterfoil to the stated intransigience of Rvd. Paisley. Why not a week ago? Why not immediately when the process ground to a halt?

Would you prefer if they waited until after the election?

I'd prefer that they had made the statement earlier, to be honest....especially if they genuinely believe (as you seem to) that it is a key move in attempting to make progress.

Anyways what’s the problem with SF putting their best face forward into an election?

Absolutely nothing. But it calls into question the motives behind the statement, which in turn must call into question the sincerity of it.

Whats the reality for republicans in south-armagh or west-belfast so? Whats the reality for people who still dont have a police force or a right to elect political representative that can affect change in their favour?

I'm not seeing the bit where they are the blocking point. I haven't once suggested that Sinn Fein and the IRA are the only parties in the wrong here. What I have suggested that is that we are currently in a position whether we like it or not where the reality is that the situation is deadlocked, and all bar one of the major parties seem to be in complete agreement that it is the remaining major party - Sinn Fein and the IRA - who must make the next move.

That makes it the largest problem. Whether you think it is the largest problem with everything or not, or whether it should be the largest or not doesn't change that it is.

it's what makes Adams statement so admirable IMO.

So you're admitting that its either an empty platitude, or that it shows that one side can take a step without the other in order to make progress?

It's a case of republicans go first now!!!

No, its a case of republicans go next.

Look at the big picture Bonkey. Its a case of coordinating the implementation of the GFA.

Thats exactly what I'm seeing. I'm seeing all the big players bar one lining up and saying to that one "we've given more than our share, and your side aren't living up to the base conditions that the GFA was based on satisfactorily any more, so now its your turn".

Ideally I would like to see police reform , demilitarisation, investigations into collusion etc completed before the IRA disband

Whats that you were saying about going first? Why is it now alright for you to expect the unionists to go first?

See, I'd expect the two things to go together. There has been some reform, some demilitarisation etc. What has there been in return? Insistence that its flawed, and that until those flaws are fixed, the other side don't even have to do anything.

<obstacle perceived at this moment in time until unionists think of something better>

One could point at the imperfect reforms carried out to date, and the stonewalling of republicans and say exactly the same thing.

does anyone else here see a problem with the argument that SF are wrong for insisting that we stick to the agreement.

Could you explain why Adams' has just made a statement appealing to the IRA to effectively do nothing more than what is the basis of the GFA? If the IRA were already doing this, the statement wouldn't be necessary, so one has to wonder what moral highground SF have to insist on adherence to the agreement.

You wanted the IRA to move from war one day to complete disbandment the next!

Please don't be putting words in my mouth. I have never suggested anything so foolish.

The IRA are not going to read out a statement written by unionists. Forget about it.

There you go putting words into my mouth again. Allow me to reiterate - Please don't, and I have never suggested anything so foolish.

I completely agree. As long as you agree that you cant develop a lasting society without a police force etc..............

But the first steps in achieving that have been taken. On the other hand, we see posters here suggesting that recruitment is no problem, and your good self suggesting that it is only the current batch who have comitted to a cease-fire.

So, on one side while you have the first steps shakily taken on the various reforms, on the other, you have - if the repubilican supporters here are to be believed - a political party backed by a bunch of people on cease-fire but who are happy to recruit and train a new generation who won't be on cease-fire, also backed by the implicit threat (explicit in your case) that unless an acceptable situation is reached within 20 years, all bets are off. Oh, and while talking about acceptable situations, we'll also frequently refer to a United Ireland, just so there's no real doubt what "acceptable" ultimately means.

In our "lasting society" im 100% entitled to hold the ideal of a united Ireland.

Anyone comitted to a democratic process, and change achieved through democracy, accountability and transparency is indeed perfectly entitled to hold that ideal, and I'd have no issue with them.

Anyone who believes in any way in the acceptability of the use of force as an manner of dealing a system which they believe to be unfair to them is also entitled to hold such an ideal. Unfortunately, their holding that ideal will be the root source of the problem, and while I cannot stop them holding the opinion, I will oppose their refusal to condemn and oppose all non-democraticaction because of that belief.

P.D's want privatisation, labour don't. They can still sit in government together.

Neither of them have an army standing behind them. They understand that you work towards your goal. You accept that - at the end of the day - it is the voice of the people expressed democratically which carries the day. You accept that you may win, lose or draw, and that you do all three peacefully.. And above all else, you do not hold a sword over other people's heads, no matter how longterm the threat.

You say the Unionists have 20 years. Ask the PDs or Labour if they will conduct acts of terrorism if their wants are not met within that timeframe, if you honestly believe that your comparison is apt. The situation in the North is so far from this that I'm staggered you'd suggest its the same thing.

All you can do is provide the circumstances where people have an option other than violence.

But not by refusing to recruit your replacements, eh? Or by making sure that the replacements you recruit will honour your ceasefire?

And you really don't see why the problem is the IRA?

jc

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

All of the above are "operations", ie. they are planned, focused, and carried out over a duration of time to achieve a desired result.

Whilst recruitment could be considered a grey area, training & punishment beatings are most definitely black and white.




Actually, military operations would be any operation carried out in the name of the entity in question. A punishment beating is carried out in the name of the IRA and all involved are threatened with reprisals by the IRA, just like a bomb blast is carried out in the name of the IRA. There. Is. No. Difference.

no military operations are actions against british crown forces etc

Lemming wrote:

That is the only thing so far that you have ever written that I would agree with. I will, to quote the phrase, believe it when it happens. Until then, it's the same old sh*t swallowed and expelled time and again.

maybe you should not prejudge there will be plenty of time to criticise if it turns out to be a pile of ****

Lemming wrote:

Ummm, would you care to point out the clause in the GFA where that was stated??

All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.

see the words ALL PARTICIPANTS

Lemming wrote:

Interested in because it's highly relevant and a core area whicha great deal many parties are interested in seeing resolved sooner rather than later.



Which would you consider the more serious .... a body to be implemented, or disarming an active private army accountable to nobody and shouldn't exist in the first place?

Would you negotiate in good faith with someone whilst they're pointing a gun at you? Or would you tell them to lose the gun first?

i consider the whole agreement important and the whole lot has to be implemented
just because you see that part as more important that does not make it so the agreement did not give an order of importance to aspects of the agreement
no body was pointing a gun at anybody

you could just as easily say the republicans had to negotiate with the british while the british had 15000 heavily armed troops waiting in the wings

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

no military operations are actions against british crown forces etc

*sigh*

cdebru - Army 'A' is officially at war with army 'b' and blows up a barrack. Army 'a' unofficiall blows up a barrack belonging to army 'c'. Because the second action was not carried out against army 'b' doesn't amount to squat. It was still a military operation.

The same way that punishment beatings are carried out. The same way that intimidation is carried out, etc.

The key here is that is is all done in the name of the IRA and therefore amounts to a planned operation. It's still an "official" IRA action. It's still a "military" operation. Otherwise you've just admitted that the IRA have engaged in war crimes.

maybe you should not prejudge there will be plenty of time to criticise if it turns out to be a pile of ****

To be honest, given the amount of action thus far delivered by SF/IRA (ie. none) you'll forgive me if I don't view them in a very dim light. I gave them the benefit of the doubt for years. In that time they've proceeded to laugh in my, and the rest of both Ireland & the UK's populations faces whilst giving them the two fingers.

Action speak louder than words and well .... the rest should be fairly obvious given their track record thus far.

see the words ALL PARTICIPANTS

Indeed. ALL. *cough*cough* Would the republicans please step into the circle along side everyone else? :rolleyes:

That particualr line of thinking cuts both ways. And last time I checked, the republicans weren't holding the moral highground either.

i consider the whole agreement important and the whole lot has to be implemented[
just because you see that part as more important that does not make it so the agreement did not give an order of importance to aspects of the agreement

WTF is this logic? If the agreement, to use your own words, did not give an order of importance then why the flying f*ck do you expect SF/IRA's demands to be given priority over everyone else saying different. Majority rules and all that.....

no body was pointing a gun at anybody

Riiiiiight ... and what would you call all those thinly veiled comments about "we cannot fail, there is no alternative" which implied a return to violence unless SF/IRA got their way

you could just as easily say the republicans had to negotiate with the british while the british had 15000 heavily armed troops waiting in the wings

Ah, but a) the British army has demilitarised heavily in the North, and both publically and transparently, along with time tables. On top of that, the British army are the recognised military arm of the recognised legitimate ruling body of Northern Ireland.

You can't compare and not look like a numpty.

rsynnott

Am I cynical in thinking he'll stick to this position until approximately 5 seconds after the general election ends?

Mighty_Mouse

The peace-process has been ground to a halt for quite a while now. Its not like Adams could make an announcement on something which wasn't an issue.

You practice in stating the obvious like a discovery sometimes bonkey. Look at the time-frame - peace negotiations fail - northern bank - McCartny murder - Adams declaration.

I personally see it as coming at the only time it could of. You see obviously see different though. Again I make the point of process. We basically went from a stage where negotiations fell on "humiliation" requirements from paisley, to Adams declaration. In between there were 2 "crisis" in republicanism plus an Ard Fheis to get over. Maybe he should of waited until after the election. Would you prefer statments to be made later rather than sooner?

I'd prefer that they had made the statement earlier, to be honest

Process...........negotiations as a series of steps...........things needing to happen before other things can etc........

But it calls into question the motives behind the statement, which in turn must call into question the sincerity of it.

Why.Unless you believe Adams wasn't sincere in what he said. Again I disagree with you.

I'm not seeing the bit where they are the blocking point.

you not looking hard enough. Its pretty obvious to me that IRA disbandment isnt a blocking issue for republicans.

and all bar one of the major parties seem to be in complete agreement

SF have made their major move. So whats the issue? I take it your delighted they have taken steps to relieve the deadlock.

So you're admitting that its either an empty platitude, or that it shows that one side can take a step without the other in order to make progress?

And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth!!! How is SF asking the IRA to finish as an organisation an empty platitude? Unless you believe that Gerry Adams himself controls the "off" switch! As for who takes what step. Big picture here Bonkey. I believe theres a number of steps which should have been taken by the other side long ago. This is a case of SF completing their "steps" before the rest have even gotten round to planning when theirs will be taken.

No, its a case of republicans go next.

When have republicans NOT lead the implementation of this agreement and then waited for others to follow.

I'm seeing all the big players bar one lining up and saying to that one "we've given more than our share, and your side aren't living up to the base conditions that the GFA was based on satisfactorily any more, so now its your turn".

focus explicitly on the "weve completed our share part". You must be joking, right?

who are happy to recruit and train a new generation who won't be on cease-fire, also backed by the implicit threat (explicit in your case) that unless an acceptable situation is reached within 20 years, all bets are off.

I dont see how in the world you are going to get an absolute guarantee that the IRA will never return under any circumstance. Unless you provide those currrently disenfranchised another option. Who's gonna sign your "absolute guarantee" piece of paper? I bet you a million bucks the IRA would be back on the scene if the Brits invaded the south in the morning.All I'm saying here is provide people with a political avenue to pursue a united ireland in a peaceful manner or else the IRA will always be there. Its a fact of life in Ireland as I see it.

Neither of them have an army standing behind them.

Exactly. But what if people who believe in privatisation were denied a right to politically express their opinion, were pro-actively kept at the lower ends of society by the socially motivated government. What would happen then?

But not by refusing to recruit your replacements, eh? Or by making sure that the replacements you recruit will honour your ceasefire?

You the one looking for complete disbandment. Who's gonna control what goes on in a scenario of complete disbandment. In a case of no IRA, theres no control on republican opinion. Republicans have 2 choices political pursuit of their objectives or voilent. If no political avenue exists...................what happens?

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

cdebru - Army 'A' is officially at war with army 'b' and blows up a barrack. Army 'a' unofficiall blows up a barrack belonging to army 'c'. Because the second action was not carried out against army 'b' doesn't amount to squat. It was still a military operation.

The same way that punishment beatings are carried out. The same way that intimidation is carried out, etc.

The key here is that is is all done in the name of the IRA and therefore amounts to a planned operation. It's still an "official" IRA action. It's still a "military" operation. Otherwise you've just admitted that the IRA have engaged in war crimes..

no not all actions by the IRA are military operations as not all actions by the British army are not military operations

just because an army is still training still recruiting does not mean it is engaged in conflict or intent on conflict

Lemming wrote:

To be honest, given the amount of action thus far delivered by SF/IRA (ie. none) you'll forgive me if I don't view them in a very dim light. I gave them the benefit of the doubt for years. In that time they've proceeded to laugh in my, and the rest of both Ireland & the UK's populations faces whilst giving them the two fingers..

the IRA have maintained a ceasefire despite various attempt to provoke them into a response by both the British and loyalists
they have decommissioned weapons in front of inspectors fronm the decommissioning body

SF have accepted the consent principle and taken part in devolved government of the 6 counties

Lemming wrote:

Action speak louder than words and well .... the rest should be fairly obvious given their track record thus far..

yes two actions of considerable decommissioning and an ceasefire

Lemming wrote:

Indeed. ALL. *cough*cough* Would the republicans please step into the circle along side everyone else? :rolleyes:.

i gave you the section you looked for it says all participants

all the parties have an influence over all the paramilitary groups

if the agreement is up and running and fully implemented then that would have an obvious influence on the IRA for example one party can not implement the agreement on its own

Lemming wrote:

That particualr line of thinking cuts both ways. And last time I checked, the republicans weren't holding the moral highground either..

i dont think anybody has a high moral ground

Lemming wrote:

WTF is this logic? If the agreement, to use your own words, did not give an order of importance then why the flying f*ck do you expect SF/IRA's demands to be given priority over everyone else saying different. Majority rules and all that......

I dont expect just SFs demands to be implemented
i expect all the aspects of the agreement to be implemented not just the ones that you would like or i would like

Lemming wrote:

Riiiiiight ... and what would you call all those thinly veiled comments about "we cannot fail, there is no alternative" which implied a return to violence unless SF/IRA got their way.

I think you are capable of seeing a veiled threat in any statement

how the **** can

we cannot fail there is no alternative

be a threat if anything it is saying there is no return to violence as that would be an alternative

Lemming wrote:

Ah, but a) the British army has demilitarised heavily in the North, and both publically and transparently, along with time tables. On top of that, the British army are the recognised military arm of the recognised legitimate ruling body of Northern Ireland.

You can't compare and not look like a numpty.

had they
have you prove of that because people in south armagh had seen no evidence of british demilitarising in 1998 that is one of the reasons the RIRA were so strong in that area


in fact last week daily Ireland had an article on the massive Forkhill base which the PSNI have left but the BRit army is staying put and have no intention to leave


legitimate in your eyes maybe

bonkey

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

You practice in stating the obvious like a discovery sometimes bonkey. Look at the time-frame - peace negotiations fail - northern bank - McCartny murder - Adams declaration.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear.

Explain to me why ADams couldn't have made this statement one week previously to when he did.

Thats after all of the blow-ups you listed which caused this current impasse, and before an election was formally called, the jostling started, and the DUP made their statement.

I personally see it as coming at the only time it could of.

So...if IRA members hadn't killed McCartney, you'd see no reason for this statement? The peace process wasn't already stalled at that point? Could you point out the progress that was being made prior to the McCartney affair that stalled after it, and again clarify why it would not have been possible for ADams to make this statement after the McCartney affair grabbed the headlines and before an election was called.

You see obviously see different though.

Yes - I'm not removing what I see as key points (such as the calling of an election, and possibly the DUP statement) from the timeline. You are, and you're offering no reason why the delay after the McCartney affair exploded in SF's face before the statement was issued.

Would you prefer statments to be made later rather than sooner?

Which part of why did they wait until now are you construing to even consider that I might think they should have waited longer?

Unless you believe Adams wasn't sincere in what he said.

Not so. I am questioning his motives. I'm neither blindly rejecting them as being false, nor blindly accepting them as being true. I am saying that there is little evidence to convince me that this was a genuine and meaningful declaration which SF seriously intends to put weight behind, and there is grounds to consider that it may just as easily be posturing.

you not looking hard enough. Its pretty obvious to me that IRA disbandment isnt a blocking issue for republicans.

Where did I say it was? I said that everyone major involved party except SF/IRA are agreed on what the problem is. Now, I would have thought that this made it clear that SF and the IRa are not agreed that this is the problem. How am I not looking hard enough if you're correcting me by making exactly the same point, except that you are deciding to only take the consideration of your chosen side into account, whereas I am looking at all parties.

If you choose to see the issue purely and solely in terms of how one side see it, thats entirely your business, but please bear in mind that I am looking at the Peace Process and how peace can be achieved, not how the Peace Process needs to run in order to give Republicans what they want.

SF have made their major move.

Which major move? Asking the IRa to restart/continue honouring the basic terms of the GFA? Thats a major move? Will you accept the unionists coming out and saying "we're comitted to the GFA as well, and would ask all parties with a vested unionist interest to play fair like they agreed to" as an equally major move?

Making an aspirational "we'd like to urge our other half to do what they agreed to, but insist we've no control over whether they do or not, and won't condemn them outright if they don't" statement is not a major move. It couldn't be considered so since before the ceasefire began which led to the GFA.

Words are cheap. When Sinn Fein actually do something, or when the IRA actually so something, you'll have grounds to claim a major move. Until then, their "major" action is as significant as Blair coming out and saying "yes, we know the police reform wasn't perfect, and we'd like to urge the PSNI to improve its act" would be. Now....how significant an act would you and other Republican supporters find those empty words?

So whats the issue? I take it your delighted they have taken steps to relieve the deadlock.

I'll be delighted if they have. Right now, as I have said more than once, I have doubts that they have done anything more than mouth the words they think people want to hear, and even more doubts that anything will come of it.

And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth!!!

You'll notice that :
a) I asked a question, I did not make a statement. So it would be difficult for me to have put anything in your mouth.
b) I argued that it had to be either illogical or refute the notion that one side could take unlilateral action, and your answer was that this is what made it so admirable. I didn't realise that saying "Thats what makes it so admirable" is a paraphrase of "no, neither of those options are correct. It was something else"...but I did you the courtesy of asking if I was interpreting your lack of dissent correctly.

How is SF asking the IRA to finish as an organisation an empty platitude?

Where in that entire speech did Adams ask them to end themself? He asked them : "Can you take courageous initiatives which will achieve your aims by purely political and democratic activity?" He did not suggest that they disband, nor did he ask that they accept democracy in terms other than ones which stated that it will achieve your aims. So what about a democratic process that doesn't achieve their aims? Will he ask them to accept that as well? Will he ask them to accept democracy regardless of how long a resolution takes, and regardless of what that resolution is?

Will he bollox. He's asked them to back democracy while it remains a tool to victory, and not once did he suggest they disband and/or permanently put violence, criminality behind them.

And besides...at the end of the day, Adams insists he (and Sinn Fein) can do nothing more than ask. They can't bring pressure to bear. They can't offer to distance themselves from the IRA. THey can't do anything except encourage the IRA to do things the way they supposedly comitted to a decade ago.

So what - exactly - is he offering of substance. He's offering a request that the IRA don't return to violence, and, well, if they decide not to bother honouring that request....oh....no....lets not even suggest there would be reprecussions.

I believe theres a number of steps which should have been taken by the other side long ago.

And I believe there's a number of steps which should have been taken by the IRA a long time ago as well. Both sides - as I've already said - are not without blame. Its not the issue. The issue is what needs to be done next.

bonkey

(ctd...)

This is a case of SF completing their "steps" before the rest have even gotten round to planning when theirs will be taken.

No - this is a case of SF reciprocating for teh initial steps which have been taken that they insisted had to be taken before they'd do anything. First it was the "not until this is done", now its "but it wasn't done right, so we're still not moving". On the other hand, when you point at anything that SF and/or the IRA didn't do "right" (in both cases, "right" translates to "how we want it done")....thats when the rules-lawyers come out to clarify that they complied exactly with the letter of the law, except where they negotiated a change because they refused to accept the other side only sticking to the letter of hte law rather than the interpretation that SF prefer.

I'm seeing all the big players bar one lining up and saying to that one "we've given more than our share, and your side aren't living up to the base conditions that the GFA was based on satisfactorily any more, so now its your turn".
focus explicitly on the "weve completed our share part". You must be joking, right?

Well, if the bit you said the focus was on was actually contained in what I said, then yes, I would be joking. But (yet again) I'd never be so foolish as to suggest something like that.

I never used the word "completed" and have already clarified that I accept that the initial reforms were far from perfect but they were started, and that the onus is now on SF and the IRA to make a start on their side. If either side waits for anything to be perfect before reciprocating, we'll never get anywhere....but like I pointed out before....its not just the unionists who can pick their delaying tactics to suit their position.

I dont see how in the world you are going to get an absolute guarantee that the IRA will never return under any circumstance.

So would you agree then that when Adams or any other spokesperson says that the IRA have put violence permanently behind them that they are being duplicitous, and possibly deliberately so? (Note - its another question. I'm not assuming, I'm not putting words in your mouth....I'm asking a question.)

Who's gonna sign your "absolute guarantee" piece of paper?

What piece of paper? Did I mention a piece of paper? The only time I can recall mentioning something at all like that was telling you that I'd never be so foolish as to suggest the IRA would read something (presumably from a piece of paper) written by Unionists as a method of disbandment.

I'm seriously beginning to wonder if you're actually replying to the points that I'm making, or just looking for the sentences you can misconstrue.....

I bet you a million bucks the IRA would be back on the scene if the Brits invaded the south in the morning.

And I can guarantee you that no-one would seriously consider a cease-fire to be maintained after the other side had already broken it. If the British went on a miltiary-backed hunt for the IRA and started shooting them like dogs in the street that the IRA would also return to violence.

However, when you train your replacements, and have fanboys crying loud and wide that those replacements are not necessarily bound by the ceasefire, then you have to start to wonder just how seriously the current generation are taking their ceasefire, and whether or not its just more of a "sure we'll give this democracy lark a shot for a while, see what it gets us, restock and rearm while we're at it, and if we haven't achieved victory in 20 years....back to war we go" pseudo-ceasefire.

See - you've more or less admitted that this is exactly what it is....and I'm telling you for a fact that this is what people have a problem with.

Anyone who thinks that the problems in the North will be solved in 20 years is - I believe - kidding themselves. You might as well believe that resistance to the English occupation of Ireland should only have lasted 20 years. So anyone who thinks that a 20-year window is enough to finalise a lasting peace deal based on compromise is equally kidding themselves.

So when you have Republicans forecasting a return to violence in that timeframe....one has to wonder what they're doing other than hoping against hope that they can actually achieve victory (not compromise...I don't recall that word appearing once in Adams' speech...how unsurprising) peacefully in that timeframe.

All I'm saying here is provide people with a political avenue to pursue a united ireland

Actually, thats what the people calling for the IRA's disbandment are doing. Thats what the people who refuse to associate or deal with those who won't distance themselves from the IRa are doing. They are insisting on a political solution, and the IRA have no place in politics.

Its a fact of life in Ireland as I see it.

You'll get no argument from me on that one. Its a fact because one side see that private armies have no place in politics, and the other side believes you can't get rid of (or disssociate from) your private army until you've achieved your political aims.

But what if people who believe in privatisation were denied a right to politically express their opinion,

Right now? The only reason that SF is being refused the right to politcally express its opinion is because it has a private army standing behind it. Get rid of the army, get on a level footing, and I will fully support its right to express its opinion politically as equally as any other party's.

You the one looking for complete disbandment.

Jeez man. It was only my last post where I pointed out that you were putting words in my mouth about complete disbandment, and here you are doing it again...

Maybe I should clear my position up so you've less reason to mis-state it...

The ultimate goal of the GFA should be a peaceful compromise, which should coincide with a complete disbandment of all illegal groups. No United Ireland. No return to Westminster. A compromise. And all sides should be willing to live with that compromise.

And just as that compromise will take time to be reached, and will be initially (and possibly always) imperfect, I would expect the disbandment to be equally slow, gradual, imperfect processes. I would expect it to happen in parallel with, not subsequent to, the slow process of compromise.

This cr@p of "but you haven't finished X, so we don't have to start Y" is not part of that, no matter which side is spouting it - republican or unionist.

The IRA have done one (and only one) positive thing since the signing of the GFA, and that was their abortive disarmament. Its time for more. Why can't htey come out and say "we will curtail all activity indefinitely", for example? What possible reason do they have to not do this other than to implicitly suggest that they are preparing (timeframe unspecified) to return to violence?????

In a case of no IRA, theres no control on republican opinion.

Ex-queeze me? You're saying that the IRA serve to control republican opinion? If thats the case, then I'm even more certain that they have no place in a society which is trying to move towards democracy, where people are free to voice their own opinion and not the one some group of armed thugs tells them to voice. Anyone controlling opinion from an armed position is nothing but tyrannical and oppressive.

Republicans have 2 choices political pursuit of their objectives or voilent. If no political avenue exists...................what happens?

Oh right. Thats why we have so much terrorism down here in teh South too. All those people who can't get their way dfemocratically, they just pick up guns and bombs and start killing those who disagree.

Because you can change the word "Republicans" with "People" in that sentence, and its no less valid or invalid, unless Republicans have some inherent inability to behave like the vast majority in a democratic society can....and I'm sure you're not suggesting that.

bonkey

cdebru wrote:

how the **** can "we cannot fail there is no alternative" be a threat if anything it is saying there is no return to violence as that would be an alternative.

Well, lets look at it.

It could mean :

1) We are incapable of failing, and success is assured.
2) We cannot allow failure, and will attempt anything to prevent it.
3) We're lying or propagandising, because we recognise failure is possible, as there are options to avoid failure that we refuse to take even if all else has been tried.

So, maybe its not a veiled threat. It coud be a lie, propaganda or a demonstration of a deranged mind who believes in its own invincibility.

I'm open to other interpretations though.

jc

cdebru

bonkey wrote:

Well, lets look at it.

It could mean :

1) We are incapable of failing, and success is assured.
2) We cannot allow failure, and will attempt anything to prevent it.
3) We're lying or propagandising, because we recognise failure is possible, as there are options to avoid failure that we refuse to take even if all else has been tried.

So, maybe its not a veiled threat. It coud be a lie, propaganda or a demonstration of a deranged mind who believes in its own invincibility.

I'm open to other interpretations though.

jc

i accept it could be any of those but not a veiled threat to return to violence

sceptre

cdebru wrote:

i accept it could be any of those but not a veiled threat to return to violence

If it can be number 2 on bonkey's list then it can be a veiled threat to return to violence.

cdebru

sceptre wrote:

If it can be number 2 on bonkey's list then it can be a veiled threat to return to violence.

well in negotiating the implementation of the GFA attempting anything to suceed would not include a return to violence as that would be a way to ensure it would fail.

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

no not all actions by the IRA are military operations as not all actions by the British army are not military operations

So, tell me, what exactly would you call a "punishment" beating or a bank robbery? They're planned. Planned = operation. And since they're done in the name of the IRA then they're military operations. How much more simple can this get? It's black and white cdebru.

Lets look at a punishment beating. They mark someone as needing to be "dealt" with, so they'll go and figure out where he'll be, adn then they draw weapons from the local "supply" be they baseball bats, golf clubs, or guns, etc. And wait for their "target" and then beat them. They then threaten them with further reprisal if they don't keep their mouths shut.

If it looks like an operations and smells like an operation, there's a pretty good probability that it IS an operation.

just because an army is still training still recruiting does not mean it is engaged in conflict or intent on conflict

Well this is the thing - the IRA isn't a recognised army, so why are they training for aggressive action? It's not like an actual army which has a soverign constitutional mandate from the people to maintain a level of preparedness that can defend the soverign borders of that country.

the IRA have maintained a ceasefire despite various attempt to provoke them into a response by both the British and loyalists
they have decommissioned weapons in front of inspectors fronm the decommissioning body

That ceasefire is a charade. They're still beating up, killing, and thieving. That doesn't look like a ceasefire to me. It's a very very very very Monty Python-esque interpretation of one if you're trying to insist on it ...

As for decommissioning, they're well past their two year deadline for ALL weapons, so why do you think they should be given a pat on the back for giving a token gesture of which everyone has to take the word for in regards its authenticity?

yes two actions of considerable decommissioning and an ceasefire

Re: the decommissioning see my above commentary. As for the ceasefire. Geeh wizz, wasn't it nice of them to stop killing people eh? Lets give them the nobel prize for having the decency and forward-thinking to stop trying to make friends with everyone using semtex :rolleyes:

Once again I shall ask you, do you think that they deserve a big pat on the back for doing the bare minimum of not actually killing peo... oh wait, they have been killing people haven't they? Geeeh, there goes that argument again ... :rolleyes:

Ooops .....

i gave you the section you looked for it says all participants

all the parties have an influence over all the paramilitary groups

if the agreement is up and running and fully implemented then that would have an obvious influence on the IRA for example one party can not implement the agreement on its own

Ah well, that works both ways cdebru. One party cannot indeed implement the agreement on its own, and just about everyone else is asking it to meet one single requirement whilst SF/IRA asks for several in return. From where I'm standing, it pretty much looks like the only "party" not wanting to have an influence over the IRA demilitarising is "Sinn Fein" , so once again you will forgive me if I start having a coughing fit and a word that sounds like "bullsh*t" accidentally gets said.

i dont think anybody has a high moral ground

Was that before or after the McCartney killing and the Northern bank job? Oh wait ... SF/IRA have never had the moral highground whatsoever ...

I dont expect just SFs demands to be implemented
i expect all the aspects of the agreement to be implemented not just the ones that you would like or i would like

I will agree, so which comes first? If SF/IRA are so committed to the peace process, then why don't they make the gesture of good will of decommissioning their arsenal and come out smelling of roses? Why the insistence that everyone else should go first? Are they planning to shoot people in the back or something?

The other parties (ie. the majority) are asking them (the minority) to step up the plate, which they refuse to do insisting that everyone else bends over backwards for them instead.

It's pure excrement cdebru. Pure and utter excrement.

I think you are capable of seeing a veiled threat in any statement

When SF/IRA say it, it usually has conditions attached in ultra-small print. :rolleyes:

how the **** can be a threat if anything it is saying there is no return to violence as that would be an alternative

Usually when there's an impass and SF/IRA aren't getting their way and say something along those lines. Which amounts to "give us waht we want or else we might have to get nasty".

had they
have you prove of that because people in south armagh had seen no evidence of british demilitarising in 1998 that is one of the reasons the RIRA were so strong in that area

IN 1998, ahhhh I see. It's all so clear to me now. I've stepped out of time and jumped forward to 2005 :rolleyes:

in fact last week daily Ireland had an article on the massive Forkhill base which the PSNI have left but the BRit army is staying put and have no intention to leave

N.Ireland is still under the remit of British rule and therefore it is prudent and indeed constitutional to have forces on standby to defend N.Ireland from any enemy foreign or domestic.

There are British forces in Scotland, Wales, England & the Falklands too. There are Irish forces in Ireland. There are US forces in America, etc. What do all these places have in common? They are all recognised as being under the protection and soverign control of those respective countries.

legitimate in your eyes maybe

Funnily enough in the eyes of about half the populace of N.Ireland & the rest of the world.

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

So, tell me, what exactly would you call a "punishment" beating or a bank robbery? They're planned. Planned = operation. And since they're done in the name of the IRA then they're military operations. How much more simple can this get? It's black and white cdebru

Lets look at a punishment beating. They mark someone as needing to be "dealt" with, so they'll go and figure out where he'll be, adn then they draw weapons from the local "supply" be they baseball bats, golf clubs, or guns, etc. And wait for their "target" and then beat them. They then threaten them with further reprisal if they don't keep their mouths shut.

If it looks like an operations and smells like an operation, there's a pretty good probability that it IS an operation..

punishment beating are a side effect of having no acceptable police force they are not aimed at removing the british army from Ireland and are not military operations to which the ceasefire would apply

Lemming wrote:

Well this is the thing - the IRA isn't a recognised army, so why are they training for aggressive action? It's not like an actual army which has a soverign constitutional mandate from the people to maintain a level of preparedness that can defend the soverign borders of that country..

well if you want to get into that then why ask them to call a ceasefire

Lemming wrote:

That ceasefire is a charade. They're still beating up, killing, and thieving. That doesn't look like a ceasefire to me. It's a very very very very Monty Python-esque interpretation of one if you're trying to insist on it ....

ok if its not a ceasefire what is it

Lemming wrote:

As for decommissioning, they're well past their two year deadline for ALL weapons, so why do you think they should be given a pat on the back for giving a token gesture of which everyone has to take the word for in regards its authenticity?.

there is no 2 year deadline

the international decommisioning body oversaw it as per agreement

Lemming wrote:

Re: the decommissioning see my above commentary. As for the ceasefire. Geeh wizz, wasn't it nice of them to stop killing people eh? Lets give them the nobel prize for having the decency and forward-thinking to stop trying to make friends with everyone using semtex :rolleyes:


Once again I shall ask you, do you think that they deserve a big pat on the back for doing the bare minimum of not actually killing peo... oh wait, they have been killing people haven't they? Geeeh, there goes that argument again ... :rolleyes:

Ooops ......

yes I think they deserve a pat on the back

Lemming wrote:

Ah well, that works both ways cdebru. One party cannot indeed implement the agreement on its own, and just about everyone else is asking it to meet one single requirement whilst SF/IRA asks for several in return. From where I'm standing, it pretty much looks like the only "party" not wanting to have an influence over the IRA demilitarising is "Sinn Fein" , so once again you will forgive me if I start having a coughing fit and a word that sounds like "bullsh*t" accidentally gets said..

well if thats the way it looks to you keep coughing hopefully you will get it out of your system soon

Lemming wrote:

Was that before or after the McCartney killing and the Northern bank job? Oh wait ... SF/IRA have never had the moral highground whatsoever ....

I dont see anybody on a high moral ground as i said

Lemming wrote:

I will agree, so which comes first? If SF/IRA are so committed to the peace process, then why don't they make the gesture of good will of decommissioning their arsenal and come out smelling of roses? Why the insistence that everyone else should go first? Are they planning to shoot people in the back or something?.

I suggest you read adams statement of the other day it seems that is exactly what adams is suggesting

Lemming wrote:

The other parties (ie. the majority) are asking them (the minority) to step up the plate, which they refuse to do insisting that everyone else bends over backwards for them instead. .

again read adams statement

Lemming wrote:

It's pure excrement cdebru. Pure and utter excrement..

what is

Lemming wrote:

When SF/IRA say it, it usually has conditions attached in ultra-small print. :rolleyes:
.

i think you go out of your way to invent it if you cannot find it

Lemming wrote:

Usually when there's an impass and SF/IRA aren't getting their way and say something along those lines. Which amounts to "give us waht we want or else we might have to get nasty"..

well the quote you gave did not suggest anything like that

Lemming wrote:

IN 1998, ahhhh I see. It's all so clear to me now. I've stepped out of time and jumped forward to 2005 :rolleyes:.

you brought up negotiating that is when the GFA was negotiated

Lemming wrote:

N.Ireland is still under the remit of British rule and therefore it is prudent and indeed constitutional to have forces on standby to defend N.Ireland from any enemy foreign or domestic.

There are British forces in Scotland, Wales, England & the Falklands too. There are Irish forces in Ireland. There are US forces in America, etc. What do all these places have in common? They are all recognised as being under the protection and soverign control of those respective countries..

i suggest you read the GFA again and the commitments on security and justice
the problem is that in those countries you have mentioned it involves troops in their own country accepted by the people with democratically elected governments as you have said nearly half of the population of the 6 counties do not accept the british army as legitimate or as their army

Lemming wrote:

Funnily enough in the eyes of about half the populace of N.Ireland & the rest of the world.

and since when have you been spokeperson for the rest of the world or did you consult them in the last couple of hours

Cork

Sand wrote:

And theres no worries about any reaction from the Army Council. I really really doubt Gerry does his politicking on the Council via the media.

SF are quiet expert at media stunts.

I doubt if tthe speech came as a surprise to the IRA leadership.