Martin McGuinness on Paxman

rubberduckey

Anyone watching Jeremy Paxman interviewing Martin McGuinness on BBC??

cdebru

why

AmenToThat

rubberduckey wrote:

Anyone watching Jeremy Paxman interviewing Martin McGuinness on BBC??

Brilliant

McGuinness yer a star.

AmenToThat

cdebru wrote:

why

Paxman was trying to lay it on thick and heavy and McGuinness was having none of it just sat back smiled and kept saying next question when Paxman repearedly asked a question to try and wind up McGuinness.

RagShagBill

The one ****ing night I fail to tune in, and that comes up! Any good?

ReefBreak

AmenToThat wrote:

Paxman was trying to lay it on thick and heavy and McGuinness was having none of it just sat back smiled and kept saying next question when Paxman repearedly asked a question to try and wind up McGuinness.

I didn't see it either (wish I had). But are you saying, AmenToThat, is that McGuinness is a star because he refused to answer any of Paxman's questions?

ReefBreak

Just watched it on http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm

McGuinnesss, yer pathetic. He refused to answer every question apart from whether he was still in the 'RA or on the Army Council.

AmenToThat

ReefBreak wrote:

I didn't see it either (wish I had). But are you saying, AmenToThat, is that McGuinness is a star because he refused to answer any of Paxman's questions?

No, just the bull**** ones.
And better than that he didnt get heated or agitated at the bombardment he just sat back and gave the same answer each time wirh a slight smile on his face
When the provos train their men they train them well!


mod edit (sceptre): Don't post soccer stuff on this board for adults again please. We have a soccer board available and all soccer-related stuff goes there. I don't care what colour socks or underpants you wear.

mycroft

ReefBreak wrote:

I didn't see it either (wish I had). But are you saying, AmenToThat, is that McGuinness is a star because he refused to answer any of Paxman's questions?

Whatever you say, say nothing......


:rolleyes:

Mc Guinness probably thought he was being all clever.

SF apologists see refusal to engage in political debate as a moral victory, the rest of us see it as cowardice to defend the principles they espose when addressing a rally of balaclava wearing volunteers, but not to engage in debate with someone who can expose their hyprocracy.

No, just the bull**** ones.
And better than that he didnt get heated or agitated at the bombardment he just sat back and gave the same answer each time wirh a slight smile on his face
When the provos train their men they train them well!

The irony of the last line and about the relationship between SF and the IRA will return to haunt you. What in your definition is a bull**** question, so politicans can avoid questions they think are bull****. Because again that defintion will return to haunt you. Why don't you tell the group, what questions were bull**** and why?

Oh and Amen I saw the interview. I'm on dial up at mo. The moment the BBC print up a transcript, I'm going to ask you to define which questions were bull**** and why. And we'll want something better than a yes or no answer.

BTW For the record as most people who followed football before the 1990 world cup and the corporate hype surrounding Sky's coverage made it trendy to follow 'soccer', football was a game as much about the heart as the head and in this mans heart Celtic fc have always been and will always be the pride of Ireland.
Now deal with that!

What in the name that is all sweet n holy does the above have to do with paxman and his line of questioning. Have you been licking paint?

MT

Is it the case that AmenToThat would like to see a return to the days when politicians were afforded undue deference? Or maybe that's just how it works in the Gerry Adam's personality cult that is Sinn Fein.

Strangely enough, we never seem to hear very much about the so called 'internal debates' that go on in SF and the IRA concerning the future of the 'peace process'. Could it be that the close connection between the two extends to the style of leadership and discipline in both? Is it really be the case that SF's claims to be a democratic political party are nothing more than a sham? Like its armed wing is real debate suppressed and a military style of command imposed at all times?

I suppose McGuinness finds these sorts of TV interviews a strange and confusing novelty. After all, back at base... sorry HQ he no doubt brooks no descent from his subordinates. Just look at how Republican hoods have treated dissenting voices in the SDLP, not to mention Antony McIntyre, in NI. If I were Michael McDowell the order for Kevlar knee pads would be in the post already.

ReefBreak

AmenToThat wrote:

No, just the bull**** ones.
And better than that he didnt get heated or agitated at the bombardment he just sat back and gave the same answer each time wirh a slight smile on his face
When the provos train their men they train them well!


BTW For the record as most people who followed football before the 1990 world cup and the corporate hype surrounding Sky's coverage made it trendy to follow 'soccer', football was a game as much about the heart as the head and in this mans heart Celtic fc have always been and will always be the pride of Ireland.
Now deal with that!

I didn't hear a single bullsh1t question. I thought McGuinness was a coward on the programme. There were a few simple questions that he refused to answer.

Offtopic: if you think Celtic are an Irish team, you're kidding yourself. Irish teams are those teams from Ireland and that play home games in Ireland. Supporting Celtic because they are Irish is a sham.

sceptre

This isn't a soccer board. I've moved some of the completely irrelevant stuff away so if you can find where I've moved it to, discuss that there. Not here.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

ReefBreak wrote:

Offtopic: if you think Celtic are an Irish team, you're kidding yourself. Irish teams are those teams from Ireland and that play home games in Ireland. Supporting Celtic because they are Irish is a sham.

I will be happy to discuss this with you in the soccer forum

I missed the programme, I will watch it on the website later.

Milo

The first question Paxman asked was, and to paraphrase , was Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness in the IRA or on the Army council?

Martin McGuinness flatly denied this admitting that he had been in the IRA but had ceased being a member of this organisation in 1974.

Paxman then asked was it proper for the public to know if the people they are voting for are actually on the army council, suggesting that even after the answer given already that Adams and McGuinness were on the army council. McGuinness then said that he had already answered this question. The first question made this inquisition null and void and McGuinness refused to answer again.

Paxman then start trying to quote British "intelligence" (remember the 45 minute claim!!!) and McGuinness asked was it the same intelligence which brought Britain to war on false pretenses.

Reckon myself McGuinness had a better opportunity to make Paxman look like an ass. Oh well there's always next time!

A Dub in Glasgo

Michael McDowell and Sean O'Callaghan giving their usual stuff. McDowell tellingly stating, I cannot prove what I am saying.

Peter Robinson speaking to about 6 people in Westminster about an alleged IRA Army Council member

The BBC presenting things as fact with no evidence in the report

Now to the interview

JP: Can we end this fiction, in light of this evidence, can you admit to being on the IRA Army Council

MM: I did not hear any evidence at all [in the report]. I am not on the IRA AC. I am not a member of the IRA. I think, given the fact that we are a week away from an election and SF is an Irish Republican party dedicated to Irish freedom and the establishment of a soverign republic, quite interesting that the British Broadcasting Corporation would choose to put out such untruthful comments about the SF leadership rather than.... Jeremy....

[Paxman obviously believes the sources on the film but confuses evidence with speculation and opinion]

JP interrupts: Right... Ok... You are making a political point now (WTF?) I want to deal with facts if I may

MM: Well you haven't got any facts... what you have got are allegations...

JP: interrupts.... well... let's... Let's start with one fact, you have admitted you were in the IRA in the 1970's, when did you leave it?

MM: 30 years ago, I told the Bloody Sunday Tribunal that I left at the end of 1974 but...

JP: interrupts...Where you at the IRA convention in Cavan in June 2002

MM: I don't know where the IRA convention was and I was not at it. Let me say this, if you will allow me, I think that many of your listeners and viewers will have heard all of this nonsense before and read much of it in the British tabloids. To be quite honest, I think people would be better focusing on the mighty contribution to the attempt to break the deadlock by Gerry Adams. He believed the best way forward for all republicans is by purely political and democratic means and we now have had reports that the IRA will have a debate and I hope that debate will culminate with the IRA...

JP: interrpts...Fine... Mr Adams has said that he is confitdent the IRA will take political path. How did he learn that? Was he told by phone? by fax? by text message? or prehaps was he just talking to himself?

MM: It is obviously my view that Gerry Adams as the leader of Irish Republicianism, carrys great weight within Irish Republicianism. I am certain that his words - calling on people to embrace this purely political and democratic means must weigh very heavily on the thinking of IRA volunteers and it is certainly my hope that the......

JP: interrputs... How did he know what the IRA was proposing to do?

MM: Well, Gerry Adams was told, by the IRA, that they were proposing...

JP: How was he told?

MM: Well, I am not going to go into that.. given that we have been through all sorts of......

JP: interrupts... Well you are expecting us to believe your bold assertions that you have virtually never heard of the IRA (WTF?), as far as I can see, you could at least tell us how you have any confidence that you have the faintest idea what their [the IRA] thinking?

MM: Well, I have taken enough of this nonsense from you over the course of the last couple of minutes Jeremy.. Do have the decency, if you will allow me to answer fully the questions that you ask....

JP: interrupts... well I have been asking you how he was told and you won't answer the question

MM: No..Listen Jeremy, you may have a reputation for bullishness and provoking people....

JP: interrupts... I am not interested... I am just trying to ask you a few questions

MM: interrputs... I am not going to play this game Jeremy. I am not going to play this game with you. I have come from my constituency and I have done you the courtesy of being here to answer your questions. I think the least you can do is to allow me to answer those questions....... if you are going to [interrupt].... there you go... there you go.

JP: interrupts.... Do you not think that the people of NI are entitled to know whether a man who claims to be a politician is in fact on an organising body of an organisation that is committed to gangsterism and bank robbery.

MM: I have alrea.....

JP: interrupts.... Are we entitled to know that?

MM: I have already answered that question. Do you have another one?

JP: I am asking you whether you think the people in NI are entitled to know that?

MM: I have already answered that question, do you have another one? a more sensible one?

JP: Yeah, do you think the people in NI are entitled to know whether a man standing for elected office, is in fact on an organising body of an organisation that is committed to gangsterism and bank robbery?

MM: I have already answered that question, have you got a sensible question?

JP: I am asking you a sensible question, ......

MM: interrupts.... I have answered that question 5 minutes ago..

JP: No you didn't, you answered another question. You denied point blank that you sat on the Army question

MM: I denied that I was a member of the IRA, now have you got a sensible question

JP: Yeah, my question.. I'll ask it repeatedly again.. I will repeat it endlessly if you want but we are not going to get anywhere, are we?

MM: Oh I think this is a waste of time this interview...

JP: interrupts... Don't you think it might help the peace process move forward if this could be laid to rest once and for all and despite all the evidence of British and Irish intelligence and many well informed observers who don't belong to any governement, you were to concede what is common tittle tattle?

MM: Well British intelligence have caused the death over the last 2 years of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq. I don't think they are reliable people to be quoting at me.

JP: OK, Martin McGuiness thank you very much

MM: Goodnight

JP: Night night

---

I think McGuinnes should have just said

'Yeah Jeremy he got a text message from the IRA which said that they were proposing to have an internal debate... next question.'

All bluff and no substance from Paxman in my opinion.

A Dub in Glasgo

ReefBreak wrote:

I didn't hear a single bullsh1t question. I thought McGuinness was a coward on the programme. There were a few simple questions that he refused to answer.

Q1 - Are you on the IRA Army Council
Ans - No
Q2 - Do you think the people are entitled to know if you are on the IRA Army Council
Ans - See Q1
Q3 - Do you think the people are entitled to know if you are on the IRA Army Council
Ans - See Q1
Q4 - Do you think the people are entitled to know if you are on the IRA Army Council
Ans - See Q1
Qn - Do you think the people are entitled to know if you are on the IRA Army Council
Ans - See Q1

Everything relating to Army Council membership was answered in Q1 and all other questions (which do not show evidence to contradict the Answer) are bullsh1t questions.

BaZmO*

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

JP: interrupts... Don't you think it might help the peace process move forward if this could be laid to rest once and for all and despite all the evidence of British and Irish intelligence and many well informed observers who don't belong to any governement, you were to concede what is common tittle tattle?

MM: Well British intelligence have caused the death over the last 2 years of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq. I don't think they are reliable people to be quoting at me.

JP: OK, Martin McGuiness thank you very much

MM: Goodnight

JP: Night night

---

I think McGuinnes should have just said

'Yeah Jeremy he got a text message from the IRA which said that they were proposing to have an internal debate... next question.'

All bluff and no substance from Paxman in my opinion.

I watched the interview last night and I can't believe nobody has mentioned what happened just after the interview.

Paxman after trying to use "British Intelligence" to back up his argument gets the reply from McGuinness and then has to turn to his next item (with a scowl on his face) which is about the British goverment misleading the British public about the Iraq war. Oh the irony!

B.

A Dub in Glasgo

I have just noticed that... quite funny

aodh_rua

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Michael McDowell and Sean O'Callaghan giving their usual stuff. McDowell tellingly stating, I cannot prove what I am saying.

I think the Minister actually said that he had proof in the form of intelligence but not in the form of admissable evidence for the courts - e.g. witnesses who would testify openly rather than in private.

As for the interview - vintage Sinn Fein evasiveness. Yes Paxman has a reputation for badgering interviewees, but I think his question was reasonable. McGuinness could have said the people have a right to know, especially as he has already told the people he's not a member (even if you don't believe him). Frankly the don't tell the b**tards anything approach is infantile, and I'm amazed it goes down so well with some of our fellow posters.

BaZmO*

aodh_rua wrote:

I think the Minister actually said that he had proof in the form of intelligence but not in the form of admissable evidence for the courts - e.g. witnesses who would testify openly rather than in private

So then, what's the point in having courts?

aodh_rua wrote:

As for the interview - vintage Sinn Fein evasiveness. Yes Paxman has a reputation for badgering interviewees

Badgering an interviewee does not a good interviewer make.

B.

A Dub in Glasgo

aodh_rua wrote:

I think the Minister actually said that he had proof in the form of intelligence but not in the form of admissable evidence for the courts - e.g. witnesses who would testify openly rather than in private.

Which means nothing then

As for the interview - vintage Sinn Fein evasiveness. Yes Paxman has a reputation for badgering interviewees, but I think his question was reasonable.

Maybe reasonable to ask once but JP knew (I am assuming that he is not naive) that the flat denial from MM had answered the substance of his question.

McGuinness could have said the people have a right to know, especially as he has already told the people he's not a member (even if you don't believe him).

Yep

Frankly the don't tell the b**tards anything approach is infantile, and I'm amazed it goes down so well with some of our fellow posters.

What I tought infantile was the line of questioning from JP. He is meant to be a robust interviewer... I could have done better than those infantile questions.

bonkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Q1 - Are you on the IRA Army Council
Ans - No
...
Everything relating to Army Council membership was answered in Q1 and all other questions (which do not show evidence to contradict the Answer) are bullsh1t questions.

I haven't checked a transcript yet, but everything relating to the IRA Army Council membership was most definitely not answered in Q1.

Does Mr. McGuinness believe, for example, that people have the right to know this information (or information of this type) about any and every electoral candidate, or indeed anyone who publically represents a democratic party?

He didn't answer that. He answered to the effect that he is willing to offer them his own status, but has in no way suggested that he believes, one way or the other, that Gerry Adams should also clarify his position, as should anyone else who is asked who wishes to play a part in democratic politics.

It would be like me saying that I'd be perfectly willing to tell people about any aliases that I use on boards. If you then ask me whether or not I believe this should be de rigeur for all posters on the politics board, is it a bullsh*t question? If so, why? Its not a question I've even suggested an answer for. Indeed, I haven't even suggested that I would accept being required to give this inforamtion....just that I would be willingly to offer it on my own terms.

Like I said...I haven't seen the interview yet, or read a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if the initial question and answer actually did answer all of the remaining ones, or made them obsolete, or bullsh*t, or anything of the sort. Unless, of course, that we take McGuinness' referral to his first answer to mean "No - I don't agree that this should be the case. If I did, then I would say so rather than telling you (again) some related stuff".

jc

grumpytrousers

Aint' seen the interview meself, but there were definite shades of Paxos Michael Howard stunt of a few years ago.

I think Art Garfunkels put down was the best I've read in ages. The irony that Paxo had to lead into the next story about...um....iffy British intelligence was icing on the cake.

Did Martin *actually* state whether he 'believe the punters had the right to know 'are you on the army council?'' - which isn't the same as answering the question 'are you on the army council'

monument

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Sounds like Paxman did a good job at making SF look good.

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Q1 - Are you on the IRA Army Council
Ans - No
Q2 - Do you think the people are entitled to know if you are on the IRA Army Council
Ans - See Q1

Everything relating to Army Council membership was answered in Q1 and all other questions (which do not show evidence to contradict the Answer) are bullsh1t questions.

Classic Chuckie evasiveness in action again.

Have you considered why McGuinness didn't answer Q2+?

Let's consider the following:

McGuinness says "yes" that people should be made aware of such. Six months from now a member of his negotiation team/senior member of SF is revealed as being on the army council .....

I don't need to conclude this scenario do I? Do I need to paint a murul for the people in Shinner-land?

IMO, he didn't answer because he knows that a senior SF public figure is on the army council. That's why he didn't answer what would otherwise be a rather reasonable question. Given he's not on the council anymore (or so he says), why the extreme evasivness?

A Dub in Glasgo

Lemming wrote:

Classic Chuckie evasiveness in action again.

Classic smoke screen from the [insert whatever] again

Have you considered why McGuinness didn't answer Q2+?

I believe he was fed up with both the tone and style of questioning from the once great Newnight presenter

Let's consider the following:

McGuinness says "yes" that people should be made aware of such. Six months from now a member of his negotiation team/senior member of SF is revealed as being on the army council .....


I don't need to conclude this scenario do I? Do I need to paint a murul for the people in Shinner-land?

Not really, show us the one you done for Telly tubby land instead :rolleyes:

IMO, he didn't answer because he knows that a senior SF public figure is on the army council.

Of course it is

That's why he didn't answer what would otherwise be a rather reasonable question. Given he's not on the council anymore (or so he says), why the extreme evasivness?

Fed up with the patronising tone from Paxman?

Lemming

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Classic smoke screen from the [insert whatever] again

Heh. Indeed, that's quite some smokescreen you're trying to put up already isn't it? ....

I believe he was fed up with both the tone and style of questioning from the once great Newnight presenter

So why "once great"? Was that after he tried to get hard answers out of McGuinness?

And fed up on question two? Blimey!!
/me slaps face with look of shock

Not really, show us the one you done for Telly tubby land instead :rolleyes:

You're funnnnnnnnnyyyyyyy .....
In a special way.

Mods? Can we keep him can we please please please?

Of course it is

Well, to be honest - his lack of willingness to answer spoke volumes above what he did say Dub.

Fed up with the patronising tone from Paxman?

Perhaps after question 5 you could state something like that? But question TWO? There's something fundamentally suspect there.

He's a politician. He is therefore in the public light and if he can't take a grilling from a journalist then he shouldn't be in "public service". He agreed to walk onto that program. He was probably given a list of possible topics to be asked questions on. He probably also agreed to that list. The words "heat" & "kitchen" spring to mind.

The short and curlies of it is quite simple Dub. He was unwilling to either give a "yes" or "no" answer, or to even explain the view on an answer not being so decisive as politicians are so fond of doing.

Firewalkwithme

Is this thread a critique on Paxmans interview technique or is it about the substance of the interview?

To say that Paxman didn't agitate McGuinnness with his questioning is not true. i have rarely seen him look so uncomfortable when being questioned though I will admit that McGuinness scored a point of his own with his remarks about British intelligence.

I would like to ask this question of all those who stood up for Mr McGuinness on this thread and others. Do you really believe that Adams and McGuinness are telling the truth when they say they are not on the IRA army council?

Do try to be honest......

AmenToThat

bonkey wrote:

I haven't checked a transcript yet, but everything relating to the IRA Army Council membership was most definitely not answered in Q1.Does Mr. McGuinness believe, for example, that people have the right to know this information (or information of this type) about any and every electoral candidate, or indeed anyone who publically represents a democratic party?

He didn't answer that. He answered to the effect that he is willing to offer them his own status, but has in no way suggested that he believes, one way or the other, that Gerry Adams should also clarify his position, as should anyone else who is asked who wishes to play a part in democratic politics.

The whole interview just fell apart with the way Paxman launched into it. Yhe transcripts will give you no idea of the tone and body language he was taking. After about thirty seconds the interview had farce written all over it. Thats why no serious questions were answered.
As I said last night it was great tv, just not a great piece of political debating.
Paxman needs to develop a good cop/bad cop appraoch if he wants to get answers all he had last night was bad cop and Mr McGuinness has seen enough of those over the years not to be phased by Jeremy Paxman.

AmenToThat

Despatch wrote:

Is this thread a critique on Paxmans interview technique or is it about the substance of the interview?

To say that Paxman didn't agitate McGuinnness with his questioning is not true. i have rarely seen him look so uncomfortable when being questioned though I will admit that McGuinness scored a point of his own with his remarks about British intelligence.

I would like to ask this question of all those who stood up for Mr McGuinness on this thread and others. Do you really believe that Adams and McGuinness are telling the truth when they say they are not on the IRA army council?

Do try to be honest......

Of course they are on the army council and as I have said before Im damn glad they are or god knows where we would be now. There are still many within Republicanism who favour the military approach and if it wasnt for Adams/McGuinness whos to say those types wouldnt be running the IRA today?

shltter

Lemming wrote:

He's a politician. He is therefore in the public light and if he can't take a grilling from a journalist then he shouldn't be in "public service". He agreed to walk onto that program. He was probably given a list of possible topics to be asked questions on. He probably also agreed to that list. The words "heat" & "kitchen" spring to mind.

The short and curlies of it is quite simple Dub. He was unwilling to either give a "yes" or "no" answer, or to even explain the view on an answer not being so decisive as politicians are so fond of doing.

just on that i watched blair and browns press conference this morning and talk about not giving a straight answer
there is nothing new or exclusive to sinn fein about the inability to give a straight answer to a straight forward question

shltter

Despatch wrote:

Is this thread a critique on Paxmans interview technique or is it about the substance of the interview?

To say that Paxman didn't agitate McGuinnness with his questioning is not true. i have rarely seen him look so uncomfortable when being questioned though I will admit that McGuinness scored a point of his own with his remarks about British intelligence.

I would like to ask this question of all those who stood up for Mr McGuinness on this thread and others. Do you really believe that Adams and McGuinness are telling the truth when they say they are not on the IRA army council?

Do try to be honest......

honestly i doubt it
I dont know for sure but given the direction that they have taken the republican movement as a whole it would probably be no bad thing if they were

mycroft

Despatch wrote:

Is this thread a critique on Paxmans interview technique or is it about the substance of the interview?

To say that Paxman didn't agitate McGuinnness with his questioning is not true. i have rarely seen him look so uncomfortable when being questioned though I will admit that McGuinness scored a point of his own with his remarks about British intelligence.

I would like to ask this question of all those who stood up for Mr McGuinness on this thread and others. Do you really believe that Adams and McGuinness are telling the truth when they say they are not on the IRA army council?

Do try to be honest......

I'd also be mildly curious what their reaction to the performance in question would be if the interview subject was Mc Dowell, and Paxman was interviewing him about allegded links to a paramilitarial far right organisation* and he gave the same performance.

*the above is hypothetical.

Of course they are on the army council and as I have said before Im damn glad they are or god knows where we would be now. There are still many within Republicanism who favour the military approach and if it wasnt for Adams/McGuinness whos to say those types wouldnt be running the IRA today?

I'll say one thing for amen he's upfront and honest about his real beliefs unlike most of the republicans on this board.

Firewalkwithme

shltter wrote:

honestly i doubt it
I dont know for sure but given the direction that they have taken the republican movement as a whole it would probably be no bad thing if they were

A nice vague answer - Martin would be proud of you.

cdebru

Despatch wrote:

Is this thread a critique on Paxmans interview technique or is it about the substance of the interview?

To say that Paxman didn't agitate McGuinnness with his questioning is not true. i have rarely seen him look so uncomfortable when being questioned though I will admit that McGuinness scored a point of his own with his remarks about British intelligence.

I would like to ask this question of all those who stood up for Mr McGuinness on this thread and others. Do you really believe that Adams and McGuinness are telling the truth when they say they are not on the IRA army council?

Do try to be honest......

my guess would be they are on the army council or they have people on it they control
I dont expect them to be honest about it and admit it on the BBC to paxman obviously

shltter

Despatch wrote:

A nice vague answer - Martin would be proud of you.

ok just to make it a bit clearer

the question was

Do you really believe that Adams and McGuinness are telling the truth when they say they are not on the IRA army council?

answer

honestly I doubt it

I dont know for sure if i was to take a guess then yes i think they are but that is all it is a guess
if they are on the army council then it is probably not a bad thing

Firewalkwithme

shltter wrote:

ok just to make it a bit clearer

the question was

answer

I dont know for sure if i was to take a guess then yes i think they are but that is all it is a guess
if they are on the army council then it is probably not a bad thing

Thanks - but if they lie about being on the council then why should we have any faith in their supposedly peaceful intentions? After all, the beatings, murders, recruiting, training and "fund raising" continue unabated.

shltter

Despatch wrote:

Thanks - but if they lie about being on the council then why should we have any faith in their supposedly peaceful intentions? After all, the beatings, murders, recruiting, training and "fund raising" continue unabated.

what do you expect mcguinness to admit to being part of the leadership of an illegal organisation on live tv
pull out his membership card be realistic

really it is a stupid ****ing question we all know that irrespective of what the truth is he has to say no so what is the point in asking

BaZmO*

Despatch wrote:

Thanks - but if they lie about being on the council then why should we have any faith in their supposedly peaceful intentions? After all, the beatings, murders, recruiting, training and "fund raising" continue unabated.

That's fair enough, if it's true. Still awaiting evidence.
However, using McGuinness's own answer to Paxman about the British goverment, if they lie about having to go to war (or the legality of it) then why should we have any faith in their supposedly peaceful intentions?

B.

AmenToThat

Despatch wrote:

Thanks - but if they lie about being on the council then why should we have any faith in their supposedly peaceful intentions?

No ones asking you to, I mean I have no faith in Bertie Aherne or Micheal McDowell whatsoever so I dont vote for them. You can do likewise.

Despatch wrote:

After all, the beatings, murders, recruiting, training and "fund raising" continue unabated.

I know, youd wonder where Adams/McGuinness get the time what with trying to run an election campaign as well..................

Firewalkwithme

shltter wrote:

what do you expect mcguinness to admit to being part of the leadership of an illegal organisation on live tv
pull out his membership card be realistic

really it is a stupid ****ing question we all know that irrespective of what the truth is he has to say no so what is the point in asking

Ok, I accept your point there. I just can't help but feel that it's a shame that there is no political party for republicans south of the border who don't want a private army as part of the deal. Please don't suggest Fianna Fail - all they want is a quiet life.

shltter

Despatch wrote:

Ok, I accept your point there. I just can't help but feel that it's a shame that there is no political party for republicans south of the border who don't want a private army as part of the deal. Please don't suggest Fianna Fail - all they want is a quiet life.

there might be soon

they might go away you know

Firewalkwithme

BaZmO* wrote:

That's fair enough, if it's true. Still awaiting evidence.
However, using McGuinness's own answer to Paxman about the British goverment, if they lie about having to go to war (or the legality of it) then why should we have any faith in their supposedly peaceful intentions?

B.

SF are trying to cast doubt on the quality of the British intelligence, a clever tactic I admit. Let's not forget though, that the Irish government also had intelligence from their own sources which confirms what the British are saying. Both governments had informers at the convention in Cavan where the council was elected so I really don't see where the doubt lies.

Firewalkwithme

AmenToThat wrote:

I know, youd wonder where Adams/McGuinness get the time what with trying to run an election campaign as well..................

It's probably the motivation of getting two paychecks at the end of the week that keeps them going.

Firewalkwithme

shltter wrote:

there might be soon

they might go away you know

Here's hoping.

AmenToThat

Despatch wrote:

It's probably the motivation of getting two paychecks at the end of the week that keeps them going.

I think you might be mixing them up with FF representetives now!

Firewalkwithme

AmenToThat wrote:

I think you might be mixing them up with FF representetives now!

Never - everyone knows FF'ers only take cash

Hydroquinone

Despatch wrote:

SF are trying to cast doubt on the quality of the British intelligence, a clever tactic I admit.

Cast doubt in whose mind?
The elections are on in the UK next week. Since no one in Scotland, England or Wales can vote for a SF candidate, the only people watching that programme for whom Martin McGuiness's tactics and ipinions can possibly influence are the voters in Northern Ireland.
And to be fair, anyone who does vote in NI already knows what their own opinion is of Martin McGuinness, Sinn Fein and of the quality of British Intelligence. They don't need to see him on Paxman; neither McGuinness nor Paxman said anything at all on that programme that could have been a new point of information to anyone at all in Northern Ireland.
It was a pointless exercise all round.

Cork

neither McGuinness nor Paxman said anything at all on that programme that could have been a new point of information to anyone at all in Northern Ireland.

That is the kernel of it all.

The NI electorate seems to have moved towards extremist partys like the DUP and SF. I am hoping aganist hope that the SDLP and Official unionists do well.

A vote for extremist partys is a vote for stale mate.

I watched Q + As on Monday night and I came away amazed at that mindset.

Is it any wonder NI politics is so poor. The "not an inch" mentality has nothing what so ever to do with building up trust in a society devided by bigotry.

MT

Cork wrote:

Is it any wonder NI politics is so poor. The "not an inch" mentality has nothing what so ever to do with building up trust in a society devided by bigotry.

So, depressingly true. That's why everyone should fear the rise of Sinn Fein in the Republic. If they manage to import the extremist tribalised politics of Northern Ireland down south then democracy will be the loser. Instead of elections based on how best to run the economy, reform the health service, education and all the socio-economic topics debated in real democracies, they'll indoctrinate the electorate with the tribal paranoia of the north. It'll be a confrontation a day with enemy - be it Unionists or the British. Instead of dealing with real issues, ministers will obsess over how they can get the north, how Unionists can be faced down. We'll have endless debates over how green we are - there'll be regular scapegoats accused of not being Irish enough. This goes on regularly in the North with both tribes engaging in a never ending game of who's the most British/Irish - delete as appropriate.

The last thing the stable, democratic Irish Republic needs is to be drawn into the Balkanised ethnic miasma of the North. Sinn Fein are the very vehicle on which that cancerous mindset will be imported. If you want liberal democracy to continue to prosper in the Republic the last thing you need is the ethnic entrepreneurs of Northern Europe’s very own Kosovo anywhere near the place – and that’s very much what Sinn Fein and the DUP are.