Ian paisley - Durkan blotched with fascism.

jank

Meanwhile, Mr Paisley has also attacked SDLP leader Mark Durkan as "an apologist for terrorism who has mixed with Sinn Fein for so long that he is blotched with fascism".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4574519.stm

Just saw this a while ago. Makes you wonder what Paisley's agenda is. Sure he is more then happy with the status quo where he can do what he wants and says what he wants, but its the green parties that get all the blame......interesting.

murphaph

jank wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4574519.stm

Just saw this a while ago. Makes you wonder what Paisley's agenda is. Sure he is more then happy with the status quo where he can do what he wants and says what he wants, but its the green parties that get all the blame......interesting.

I think Paisley's a bit mad. I kind of feel sorry for him, embarrassed even. I imagine the next generation including his son are pretty much waiting in the wings to do business. All that has to happen is SF/IRA get rid of their guns and actually give up criminal behaviour. Can't say I'm too optimistic about that. Poor Mark Durkan and the rest of the SDLP-a proper political party based on the struggle for northern catholics to win equality in the bad old days before 1 man 1 vote.

secret_squirrel

murphaph wrote:

I imagine the next generation including his son are pretty much waiting in the wings to do business.

May be completely wrong here but I had the impression that Paisley Jr. was a chip off of the old mad block?

Sinn Fein for so long that he is blotched with fascism

Sinn Fein as fascists? The mind boggles!

mike65

Some of us here might agree with that but not that Durkan is tinged with it. Paisleys always looking for a headline.

Mike.

Sand

Just saw this a while ago. Makes you wonder what Paisley's agenda is

Theres little cause to wonder. His agenda, affirmed by the way its been backed electorally, is to never ever allow SFIRA terrorists to enter the government of Northern Ireland - the December fiasco when SFIRA pulled out after a clause calling for an end to criminality was inserted has only confirmed that strategy.

I imagine the next generation including his son are pretty much waiting in the wings to do business.

Theres no indication of that, and there no indication Unionist voters will support any "deals" with SFIRA. The DUPs stated strategy, failing persuading the SDLP to share power, is to make direct rule more accountable. The concept of their strategy if SFIRA embrace constitutional politics is given as much thought as their strategy for their policies in a United Ireland.

All that has to happen is SF/IRA get rid of their guns and actually give up criminal behaviour. Can't say I'm too optimistic about that.

Ah cmon now. SFIRA are in deep discussions about Adams call to disband the IRA branch of the organisation. Im sure theyll get back to us , ooooh round about the next time elections are held, with an update on how talks are progressing.

jank

Absolutly ****ing unbelieveable

After 3 posts a thread about the old fashioned ways of Ian Paisley as gotten into a boards style Sinn Fein bashing exercise......Its clear that some here have a agenda, fox news style imo.

murphaph

jank wrote:

Absolutly ****ing unbelieveable

After 3 posts a thread about the old fashioned ways of Ian Paisley as gotten into a boards style Sinn Fein bashing exercise......Its clear that some here have a agenda, fox news style imo.

It's because no matter how SF/IRA supporters try to square a circle they can't get away from the fact that the IRA still holds a heap of weaponry and still engages in criminal activity. That's the nub of the issue in Northern Ireland. Paisley's nuts, what's new?

Sand

Absolutly ****ing unbelieveable

After 3 posts a thread about the old fashioned ways of Ian Paisley as gotten into a boards style Sinn Fein bashing exercise......Its clear that some here have a agenda, fox news style imo.

The topic is Paisley bashing Durkan for lying down with SFIRA dogs and getting up with fleas and Paisleys agenda. The topic is obviously going to include discussion on whether Paisley has a point, and what his thoughts are on SFIRA.

Unless of course the thread is purely about a good old Paisley bash with no discussion required or welcomed - in which case its yourself that has the agenda, an agenda that would be better welcomed on the IRBB. Outside of there the provo line of thought isnt going to go unchallenged. Get over it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Paisley is just doing what he has done for the last 4 decades... impeding progress. Nothing new there. Paisley and his merry band are not adverse to siding with terrorists.. as long as they are his terrorists!

flogen

Paisley is doing what got him into the position he's in now, publically stating his mistrust for Nationalists and Republicans. When the UUP couldn't deliver on a policy of co-operation, he stepped in and gave tired Unionists what they wanted, someone who wasn't going to take any crap from Republicans. As long as the IRA have weapons and are engaged in criminal activity he can continue to bad-mouth them, gain support from it and will always come out on top. Anything he does wrong is nothing compared of having a private army.
Of course, if they were clever enough to call his bluff that could all change, but they're not.
While I hate Paisley, I have to say that any progress to be made is not his problem at the moment, it's all on SF. I don't think it's unreasonable to refuse to share power with a party that has a private and illegal army, and yet I don't think going ahead without that party will work. You can say what you want about the internal debate at IRA HQ, but until they actually do something then the stall is no-one elses fault but their own.

dahamsta

I feel that if anyone is qualified to lecture on agendas, it's Sand.

Villain

I had a long post written, but it would probably just ensure the thread turned into a bash SF thread so I think I'll leave it out.

But one point to note is that Paisley rejects the GFA that the majority of people on this ISLAND supported, it's about time he stopped calling people names and actually worked to get a deal done.

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

it's about time he stopped calling people names and actually worked to get a deal done.

Getting a deal done requires having people on both sides who are willing and to deal and who are acceptable to deal with.

Paisley is pointing out the flaws in the stance of the other side. As pointed out, he mightn't have a particularly higher moral ground to do so from, but is most definitely on one no lower.

As per usual, we can expect both sides to point out how unacceptable the other is and how it must reform before progress is made.

murphaph

irish1 wrote:

I had a long post written, but it would probably just ensure the thread turned into a bash SF thread so I think I'll leave it out.

But one point to note is that Paisley rejects the GFA that the majority of people on this ISLAND supported, it's about time he stopped calling people names and actually worked to get a deal done.

I've never liked Paisley or any of the DUP to be honest, they're all really creepy no? but what's he to do? I wouldn't stand in the same room as Adams so he's done more than me and I'm living in the south and baptised catholic! SF/IRA are the people who need to move. SF are the only party of any signifigance with a private army and that army just has to wind up. I think that army have long been a bunch of 'regular' criminals and have as much intention of giving up criminality as the Westies here in Dublin. So SF have to start distancing themselves from the IRA and stop telling people to report crimes against them to 'trusted sources' but to the PSNI, the legal upholders of law and order in NI. They have to condemn every criminal act they commit and at a minimum, like all the other parties up north, down south and in Britain!

Running Bing

Am I understanding these posts correctly? people are actualy defending Ian Paisley? No matter how much you hate sinn fein/IRA you cannot deny that the reverand Ian paisley is an absolute biggot, a man full of hatred for anything Irish. Have people not seen him give interviews on prime time he treats every Irish man and woman as his enemy including the presenters and interviewers.

Does anyone here seriously believe that if the IRA was to disband fully tomorrow Ian paisley would be happy to talk with sinn fein? dont make me laugh.And his son is just as bad.

Some people on this board seem to have interest in nothing accept bad mouthing sinn fein/IRA. Their not the only ones with dirty hands in northern Ireland, not by a long shot.

Victor

secret_squirrel wrote:

May be completely wrong here but I had the impression that Paisley Jr. was a chip off of the old mad block?

Jr. is more "fire" than "fire and brimstone"

county

ian paisley represents the marjority of unionists in the north would you say the marjority of unionist are biggits?

murphaph

Babybing wrote:

Am I understanding these posts correctly? people are actualy defending Ian Paisley? No matter how much you hate sinn fein/IRA you cannot deny that the reverand Ian paisley is an absolute biggot, a man full of hatred for anything Irish. Have people not seen him give interviews on prime time he treats every Irish man and woman as his enemy including the presenters and interviewers.

But I bet he's never shot anyone. Like I said, I personally find him quite abrasive, but at least he has a bit of character.

Babybing wrote:

Does anyone here seriously believe that if the IRA was to disband fully tomorrow Ian paisley would be happy to talk with sinn fein? dont make me laugh.And his son is just as bad.

Only one way to find out, only one way to find out.

Babybing wrote:

Their not the only ones with dirty hands in northern Ireland, not by a long shot.

True.

murphaph

county wrote:

ian paisley represents the marjority of unionists in the north would you say the marjority of unionist are biggits?

No, just like I wouldn't say the majority of nationalists are in the IRA like Adams.

A Dub in Glasgo

county wrote:

ian paisley represents the marjority of unionists in the north would you say the marjority of unionist are biggits?

There will be some who will say yes and they will say this based on the same logic as those who call SF voters scum/terrorists/[insert whatever petty and juvenile description here].

On the other hand, it is absurd to state that the majority of Unionists are bigots because they voted for a bigot. People vote for all sorts of reasons and there will be a proportion who did vote because they agree with the bigotry of the DUP but that cannot be quantified.

Villain

murphaph wrote:

But I bet he's never shot anyone.

Are you comparing him to someone there and if so who?

As for the IRA and SF having to make the move, I agree 100% that the IRA has to seize to exist. But I also remember what Paisley said before the deal broke down before xmas, i.e. his sackcloth and ashes speech. If Paisley hadn't demanded those photographs we could be in avery different situation right now. Both sides have to move and as I said say what you like about SF but they support the GFA, Paisley doesn't.

county

i did not state unionists were biggits i only posed the question!

murphaph

irish1 wrote:

Are you comparing him to someone there and if so who?

Various senior members of SF.

irish1 wrote:

say what you like about SF but they support the GFA, Paisley doesn't.

SF/IRA are still robbing banks and murdering people. That's showing great support for it alright. Actions speak louder than rhetoric.

county

the fact remains that decommissioning is surrender to the ira,the british will always prevail and the ira know that

axer

murphaph wrote:

But I bet he's never shot anyone.

He may not have shot anyone but his biggoted speeches about catholics in Northern Ireland have caused many a riot which ended in many catholic houses getting burned to cinders and catholics murdered.

I think the problem is that Ian Paisley doesn't want to be the one that decides to go into government with Sinn Fein. If he goes into power with Sinn Fein (even with IRA disbanded), he's afraid his party may lose support.
I wouldn't call him a character, he's much too evil for that. I think he knows exactly what he is doing saying what he says.
I don't think its Sinn Fein's turn to make a move, it's the IRA's. Sinn Fein have issued their stance. When the IRA respond agreeing to disband and actually disband - then the ball is in the DUP's court. The only problem is I think the ball will remain in their court for a long long time until their voter's get sick of them and vote for the UUP - and alas there will be progress.

murphaph

county wrote:

the fact remains that decommissioning is surrender to the ira,the british will always prevail and the ira know that

It's not about anyone prevailing. It's about everyone living in peace with each other like normal societies.

murphaph

axer wrote:

I don't think its Sinn Fein's turn to make a move, it's the IRA's.

Same difference. That charade of Adams' asking the IRA to disband was just that, a charade. He'd already convened a meeting of the army council and they'd all agreed on that announcement beforehand. All carefully choreographed but fooling nobody.

Sand

Am I understanding these posts correctly? people are actualy defending Ian Paisley? No matter how much you hate sinn fein/IRA you cannot deny that the reverand Ian paisley is an absolute biggot, a man full of hatred for anything Irish. Have people not seen him give interviews on prime time he treats every Irish man and woman as his enemy including the presenters and interviewers.

And that should demonstrate just how unacceptable the SFIRA attitude has been. The fact that people are going Paisley has a point. 10 years ago Paisley was lunatic fringe nut. Now hes the seeming voice of reason when it comes to SFIRA. Whose fault is that? Ours or Adams and Co?

Are you comparing him to someone there and if so who?

Well, theres simply so many to choose from amongst the SFIRA leadership.

If Paisley hadn't demanded those photographs we could be in avery different situation right now. Both sides have to move and as I said say what you like about SF but they support the GFA, Paisley doesn't.

No we wouldnt Irish1. Even if the bank robbery hadnt occured - and it probably would have - McCartney would still have been murdered and SFIRA would still have sabotaged and intimidated the murder inquiry. And if you think Paisley wouldnt sieze on that as an exscuse to jump ship, you simply dont give Paisley enough credit for not being Trimble.

And as for SFIRAs support, as someone said already, its great in theory but doesnt amount to much in practise.

Villain

murphaph wrote:

Same difference. That charade of Adams' asking the IRA to disband was just that, a charade. He'd already convened a meeting of the army council and they'd all agreed on that announcement beforehand. All carefully choreographed but fooling nobody.

I take it thats your opinion, coz if your presenting that as fact I would love to see the proof.

So sand you think that if Paisley had agreed to allowing decommisioning be observed by a member of the Protestant church and the IRA ahd fully deccomisoned we wouldn't be in a different situation

murphaph

irish1 wrote:

I take it thats your opinion, coz if your presenting that as fact I would love to see the proof.

Yeah it's my fervent conviction. You think P. O'neill (aka G. O'Adams) didn't know all about the call that was to come from SF? Don't you think they'd be a bit pi$$ed off at not being consulted in private first?

county

there is no such thing as a protestant church,there are different denominations,such a catholic opinion

gandalf

dahamsta wrote:

I feel that if anyone is qualified to lecture on agendas, it's Sand.

For adding absolutely nothing to the discussion and trying to personalise it have a one week ban.

axer

murphaph wrote:

Same difference. That charade of Adams' asking the IRA to disband was just that, a charade. He'd already convened a meeting of the army council and they'd all agreed on that announcement beforehand. All carefully choreographed but fooling nobody.

Even if he had contacted the PIRA before - which i'm sure he had, should he have not made a statement asking them to end their armed struggle? He was officially, on the record, calling on the PIRA to end their armed struggle. It doesn't make it a charade.
But this is probably off topic.
Ian Paisley is 79, so hopefully he has only a few years left - it is believed that he is suffering from a terminal illness. But I fear his son may be worse. Can you imagine listening to a catholic hating bigot father for the first 39 years of your life? I'm sure it would have a major effect on a kid growing up.
And to sum up Ian Paisley with one of his quotes from 1968 that he "would rather be British than be fair."

Mighty_Mouse

But I fear his son may be worse. Can you imagine listening to a catholic hating bigot father for the first 39 years of your life?

his son doesnt carry the same clout. Robison and Donaldson are more of a threat to the process if Paisley kicks the bucket IMO

murphaph

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

his son doesnt carry the same clout. Robison and Donaldson are more of a threat to the process if Paisley kicks the bucket IMO

To be honest guys they're a bunch of politicians. Politicians want power and their principles usually fo out the window when the begin to sniff it. If SFIRA ditch the criminality then the DUP will deal with them with a triumphalist "we made the IRA go away" type of thing. They'll all happily head into power together with the two most extreme leaders of politics being the most powerful men in NI. How very sad. We could have had decent genuine folks like Hume & Trimble and things like education and roads would be the biggest topics of debate in Stormont instead of bombs and guns. I'm sure the vast vast majority of the people of NI want fcuking normality! But seem to vote for extremism??

Mighty_Mouse

Politicians want power and their principles usually fo out the window when the begin to sniff it

I dunno, all politicians should want power. Without it they cannot represent their constituents

They'll all happily head into power together with the two most extreme leaders of politics being the most powerful men in NI

Also, the two most democratically supported.

We could have had decent genuine folks like Hume & Trimble

Now this made me choke!!! Fair enough Trimble has knocked Jesus of his chair in Irish circles but fecking Trimble!!! Christ on a bike! The same dude that got us into this mess by refusing to support the agreement. By walking away from the process at a point where the IRA had made major decommissioning moves and were on the road to disbandment. For what? To try and out-bigot Paisley as always.

Same as they held hands after leading the Orange Order down the "queens highway".

We could have had decent genuine folks like Hume & Trimble

The roads are not in bad shape. Great progress was made in Education with martin mcguiness in a few short months.

I'm sure the vast vast majority of the people of NI want fcuking normality! But seem to vote for extremism??

Im not so sure the majority of people who vote for DUP wants a functioning democracy. We'll see how their support holds up if they go into power with Sinn Fein.

murphaph

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Now this made me choke!!! Fair enough Trimble has knocked Jesus of his chair in Irish circles but fecking Trimble!!! Christ on a bike! The same dude that got us into this mess by refusing to support the agreement. By walking away from the process at a point where the IRA had made major decommissioning moves and were on the road to disbandment. For what? To try and out-bigot Paisley as always.

Come on, David Trimble ad his supporters like Taylor and Nesbitt took unionism somewhere it had never been before. He risked and lost his political career because he genuinely thought he could work towards a lasting peace. Without him and Hume there would be no GFA. He was once one of the most fervent unionsists in NI. We all remember him at the Orange marches in Portadown, but that was easy for him. The hard thing was taking the risks he took which eventually cost him his career because the IRA won't cut the crap and wind up.

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

The roads are not in bad shape. Great progress was made in Education with martin mcguiness in a few short months. Im not so sure the majority of people who vote for DUP wants a functioning democracy. We'll see how their support holds up if they go into power with Sinn Fein.

I'm not talking about how roads and education are, I'm saying that in normalised politics that's what we talk about, not weaponry and the like. I believe that most unionists and nationalists are sick of the boys with their toys (paramilitaries crawling round forests doing their 'training'). They didn't always vote for SF or the DUP. The IRA failed to move fast enough (It's 11 years since the first ceasefire and hey still haven't decommissioned!!) and now we're slipping back. You see, SF are nothing without the IRA and they know it. Martin McGuinness as Minister for Education....now that was a laugh....and today's lesson is TIMERS!

Mighty_Mouse

Come on, David Trimble ad his supporters like Taylor and Nesbitt took unionism somewhere it had never been before.

Where? There has been several "new beginnings" in the past. Just that they didnt involve republicans. What "brave" decisions did Trimble make? Enter negotiations with republicans?

I dont call it brave, I call it innevitable. Same as the DUP will eventually.

He was once one of the most fervent unionsists in NI. We all remember him at the Orange marches in Portadown, but that was easy for him

But he didnt change his views; ever

The hard thing was taking the risks he took which eventually cost him his career because the IRA won't cut the crap and wind up.

What exactly cost him his career?IMO it was the fact that he could never bring himself to proactively work towards a stable democracy. Are you telling me that if he had achieved this, he would of lost the election to the DUP. IMO the loss of the UU in the last elections was due to a political vacum created 90% their own fault.

Remember the historic statements which were to be made. With Gerry going first of course stating the IRA was over. Trimble pocketed that and walked away.
Historic, independantly supervised decommissioning under established structures also took place. Trimble pocketed that and walked away.

All SF ever asked him to do was to procactively support the "agreement". He could never do it. The IRA would be non-existant in a stable democracy in the north only for him. He was essentially spineless with balls to stand up to the likes of the DUP and and people like Jeffrey.

You see, SF are nothing without the IRA and they know it. Martin McGuinness as Minister for Education....now that was a laugh....and today's lesson is TIMERS!

How do you believe SF are nothing without the IRA. Sure the IRA have been effectively out of operation for the last 10 years.

Are you suggest McGuinness didnt make a good job of education?

Sand

But he didnt change his views; ever

He entered the assembly with SFIRA through gritted teeth and over the growing discontent in his parties ranks at SFIRAs unreformed terrorism.

SFIRA wont even sit on the policing board. Their party members recently murdered a man, and SFIRA wont even call on people to make statements to the police.

Who travelled farthest?

So sand you think that if Paisley had agreed to allowing decommisioning be observed by a member of the Protestant church and the IRA ahd fully deccomisoned we wouldn't be in a different situation

SFIRA had no intention of living up to the terms of any deal. Thats demonstrated by their contempt for the deal as it stands - theyre still maintaining and operating a terrorist group, still carrying out punishment beatings and still committing crime.

Even if they did some publicity stunt for the benefit of Paisley he quite rightly wouldnt trust them, and SFIRA quite predictably wouldnt become upstanding constitutional democrats aghast at the idea of terrorism. Any deal is meaningless when the so called partners for peace hate and mistrust each other. Any deal would have collapsed either in the aftermath of the bank robbery or the McCartney murder, or it would simply have collapsed under the weight of continuing SFIRA punishment beatings and criminal enterprise.

Belief otherwise is as misplaced as the widely trumpeted assertion that Paisley was gagging to "do a deal" after the elections.

All SF ever asked him to do was to procactively support the "agreement". He could never do it. The IRA would be non-existant in a stable democracy in the north only for him. He was essentially spineless with balls to stand up to the likes of the DUP and and people like Jeffrey.

Trimble was given a written guarantee that if he entered government with SFIRA that they would decomission. Spin it anyway you like but he jumped first depending on SFIRA to follow. They didnt, they sold him out and made him look weak and ineffectual. Best of luck with Paisley - hes not going to fall for Provo two facedness, and hes not going to be bullied by the governments like Trimble was - not after the near disaster in December.

murphaph

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

How do you believe SF are nothing without the IRA. Sure the IRA have been effectively out of operation for the last 10 years.

SF had t be brought into the fold because they represent (are) the IRA. Without the threat of a private army SF's importance dies away and people can just vote for normal non-terrorist linked politicians.

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Are you suggest McGuinness didnt make a good job of education?

Come on then, I know you're dying to tell me all the great initiatives he started?

I agree with Sand. SFIRA fcuked Trimble over and now they have an extremist counterbalance. Perhaps it was SFIRA strategy all along?

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

I take it thats your opinion, coz if your presenting that as fact I would love to see the proof.

So sand you think that if Paisley had agreed to allowing decommisioning be observed by a member of the Protestant church and the IRA ahd fully deccomisoned we wouldn't be in a different situation

Uh huh, and the fact that while negotiations were taking place the IRA were planning a massive robbery, seems to suggest that the IRA were'n't just about to lie down.

The suggestion that Paisley was the only one who made the talks in December collaspe is a cornerstone of SF arguments, the fact that the IRA were operating during these talks suggest otherwise.

Boggle

SFIRA had no intention of living up to the terms of any deal.

Judging by the obvious prejudice displayed in your posts, I would imagine this is more of an opinion than a fact. How can you deny that if the IRA have decomissioned then regardless of what happened, a u-turn would have ruined SF? I mean, if they say they have destroyed their weapons and then go back to business as usual then nobody would ever deal with SF again. Furthermore, I believe that SF would have lost serious support as people would no longer believe that SF could bring them peace. (And like people said, that is what most people up there want after all)

Uh huh, and the fact that while negotiations were taking place the IRA were planning a massive robbery, seems to suggest that the IRA were'n't just about to lie down.

No offence, but this seems a tad naive statement. Until the point where they disband they are still an active (criminal) organisation and as such will continue to plan for the future. They were on a ceasefire, ie no bombings - nothing else.

SF had t be brought into the fold because they represent (are) the IRA.

Actually I think they represent the catholics. (Whether that support was generated initially because of the IRA's existence is another matter)

Any deal would have collapsed either in the aftermath of the bank robbery or the McCartney murder, or it would simply have collapsed under the weight of continuing SFIRA punishment beatings and criminal enterprise.

Who is to know if the robbery would have taken place at all if game over was called (assuming it WAS indeed the IRA) - you can play "what if" all you like but there is no way of knowing. As for the murder, those people may have been SF/IRA members but they were not acting on behalf of the IRA. Rogue elements are an unfortunate part of every group - and the current climate (where we have an IRA) only gives them some illusion of authority.

Even if he had contacted the PIRA before - which i'm sure he had, should he have not made a statement asking them to end their armed struggle? He was officially, on the record, calling on the PIRA to end their armed struggle. It doesn't make it a charade.

But he is at least on record saying that he wants the days of violence over. How long can he play the tune without acting? If the Unionists had any cop on they would be making every effort to help the process at this stage in order to force his hand in removing the IRA.


All this is well and good, but I actually believe that Paisley doesn't want a peace as I believe, once peace is attained, that his biggotry would soon become a thing of the past and he would have to move over for other politicians who speak the language of reconcilliation...

mycroft

Boggle wrote:

No offence, but this seems a tad naive statement. Until the point where they disband they are still an active (criminal) organisation and as such will continue to plan for the future. They were on a ceasefire, ie no bombings - nothing else.

No it's not. It's a response to the claim that we were on the cusp of a historic breakthrough a potential disbanding of the IRA in december destroyed by Paisleys obstinance and hardline stance which could not be tolerated as a sign of surrender by the IRA. This has been the stance of the IRA/SF supporters/Republicans on this board since then. They have a point.

However the suggestion that the IRA were just about to disband is discredited by the fact that during this negotiations the IRA were planning a massive robbery. Why? Why did an army just on the edge of disbandment need such an influx of cash.

While I don't doubt that Paisley's wrecking upset the apple cart of the peace process, one has to wonder were the IRA just about to disband or discontinue.

So no it's not a naive statement, its on a attack on the claim that the peace process stalled just because of Paisley's demand.

As for the criminal acts we are repeatadly assured the IRA's criminality is used to fund their war and thats it, so either the repubilican movement was engaged in common theivery to line their own pockets, or the statement that the Paisley was the sole wrecker of the December talks is false, because the IRA were robbing banks to continue their campaign. Either way the repubilcan movement doesn't come out of this looking well.

Who is to know if the robbery would have taken place at all if game over was called (assuming it WAS indeed the IRA) - you can play "what if" all you like but there is no way of knowing. As for the murder, those people may have been SF/IRA members but they were not acting on behalf of the IRA. Rogue elements are an unfortunate part of every group - and the current climate (where we have an IRA) only gives them some illusion of authority.

Ah the wacky rouge element. Responsible for so many acts that go aganist the principle of republicanism, the murder of innocents, robbery, intimidation, astonishing acts of violents. Hang on I got turned around, which ones are the principles of republicanism, and who's going aganist them?

But he is at least on record saying that he wants the days of violence over. How long can he play the tune without acting? If the Unionists had any cop on they would be making every effort to help the process at this stage in order to force his hand in removing the IRA.

New to the situation are we? The Unionists have elected a hard line party who have dug their heels in, because for the last decade Trimble was seen to cave into the repubilican movement. The Unionist elected Paisleys bunch for the exact opposite argument you're presented.

All this is well and good, but I actually believe that Paisley doesn't want a peace as I believe, once peace is attained, that his biggotry would soon become a thing of the past and he would have to move over for other politicians who speak the language of reconcilliation...

And again the Trimble et all were speaking the language of reconcilliation for nigh on decade (with the odd speed bump) and their time is at the moment past, the republican movement has got to cop that it's unlikely to change back any time soon, and they're going to have to try to meet Paisley half way. For example if the IRA really were interested in decommisioning they've lost the moral high ground over their pride over photographs, the last six months have seen to that, if they've interested in peace time to don the sackcloth and ashes. That'll take the wind out of Paisley's sails, and will give Ahern and Blair something to hold over Paisley, "they've done this, now you've got to open power sharing"

Boggle

However the suggestion that the IRA were just about to disband is discredited by the fact that during this negotiations the IRA were planning a massive robbery. Why? Why did an army just on the edge of disbandment need such an influx of cash.

Did you read my point? Read iot agin if you want an answer to this.

While I don't doubt that Paisley's wrecking upset the apple cart of the peace process, one has to wonder were the IRA just about to disband or discontinue.

Not being blessed with psychic powers, I can only assume that they would have done what they said they would do. (I gave reasons in the last post why I thought it would be difficult for them to do a u-turn)

As for the criminal acts we are repeatadly assured the IRA's criminality is used to fund their war and thats it, so either the repubilican movement was engaged in common theivery to line their own pockets, or the statement that the Paisley was the sole wrecker of the December talks is false, because the IRA were robbing banks to continue their campaign. Either way the repubilcan movement doesn't come out of this looking well.

Whats so surprising about a criminal gang lining their own pockets? You seem shocked at the idea...

Ah the wacky rouge element. Responsible for so many acts that go aganist the principle of republicanism, the murder of innocents, robbery, intimidation, astonishing acts of violents. Hang on I got turned around, which ones are the principles of republicanism, and who's going aganist them?

In this an argument against the point or an acknowledgement that I have one?

New to the situation are we? The Unionists have elected a hard line party who have dug their heels in, because for the last decade Trimble was seen to cave into the repubilican movement. The Unionist elected Paisleys bunch for the exact opposite argument you're presented.

So that photographic evidence (aka propaganda to keep paisley in office after peace is restored) was the hard line they chose?? They were getting what they wanted - why the extra conditions?

And again the Trimble et all were speaking the language of reconcilliation for nigh on decade (with the odd speed bump) and their time is at the moment past, the republican movement has got to cop that it's unlikely to change back any time soon, and they're going to have to try to meet Paisley half way. For example if the IRA really were interested in decommisioning they've lost the moral high ground over their pride over photographs, the last six months have seen to that, if they've interested in peace time to don the sackcloth and ashes. That'll take the wind out of Paisley's sails, and will give Ahern and Blair something to hold over Paisley, "they've done this, now you've got to open power sharing"

Thats a good answer - but unfortunately its got nothing to do with the observation I made.

Edit: After re-reading your statement I have to agree with you about the IRA disarming. If they had the cop on to disarm anyway then they could have seriously taken the initiative for SF. However, even if they (genuinely) did this I have a feeling that Paisley would have still never been happy and would probably claim that they were lying. Again it goes back to my point that, even more so than SF, Paisley runs the risk of sliding into obscurity if a peace is reached and so I believe he doesn't really want a peace unless he can claim credit (like with the photo's).

mycroft

Boggle wrote:

Did you read my point? Read iot agin if you want an answer to this.

I did. And you've misread mine. Its presented by SF supporters/IRA apologists on this board as canon that the IRA were about to disband were it not for Paisley's obstinance in Decemeber, I'm merely pointing out that the IRA's activities in decemember would tend to deflat that theory.

Not being blessed with psychic powers, I can only assume that they would have done what they said they would do. (I gave reasons in the last post why I thought it would be difficult for them to do a u-turn)

And again what they claim they were about to disband runs aganist their robbery, what does a terrorist group about to disband (or claiming to disband) need with a massive influx of cash.

Whats so surprising about a criminal gang lining their own pockets? You seem shocked at the idea...

So now you're claiming they're a criminal gang. You're flip flopping, if they're a criminal gang, why would you believe their claim, as you do above; (not being blessed with psychic powers but some deductive reasoning would help) Here's the logic;

If the IRA are terrorist organisation who are about to disband, but are waylaid at the last minute by a nefarious Unionist, why were they planning a massive heist during this negotiations. Either A) they weren't planning on disbanding.

Or they are a criminal gang who see no profit in disbanding.

Either way, it stops being entirely Paisley's fault.

I was furious with Paisley when he played this trick in december but the behaviour of the IRA in the aftermath and what they were planning while we were assured by SF they were on the cusp of going away, tends to suggest this isn't entirely his fault. Either way the suggestion that the collaspe of talks in december may have been Paisley's fault but in hindsight the IRA's commitment to decommisioning or disbandment seems like lip service at best.

In this an argument against the point or an acknowledgement that I have one?

See I'm not sure you have one, or what your issue is with me. You accused me of being naive, I was merely presenting a counter argument to the SF claim that the current crisis is all Paisley's fault.

So that photographic evidence (aka propaganda to keep paisley in office after peace is restored) was the hard line they chose?? They were getting what they wanted - why the extra conditions?

1. Paisley wasn't in office when he made the challenge. And it paid dividends with his party being the largest party in the north after the elections, therefore at least, part of the population of northern Ireland agrees with his stance.

2. Why the extra condition. I ain't wandering into the dark recesses of the man's psychic, however again in hindsight, considering the dupiliciousness of the IRA, asking for photographic proof (even if it's to gloat) doesn't seem like much to ask.

Edit: After re-reading your statement I have to agree with you about the IRA disarming. If they had the cop on to disarm anyway then they could have seriously taken the initiative for SF. However, even if they (genuinely) did this I have a feeling that Paisley would have still never been happy and would probably claim that they were lying. Again it goes back to my point that, even more so than SF, Paisley runs the risk of sliding into obscurity if a peace is reached and so I believe he doesn't really want a peace unless he can claim credit (like with the photo's).

And again the sliding into obscurity thang. Paisley is now the leader of the largest party in the north, the 4th largest party in the house of parliament, one of the largest blocks of UK MEPs outside of the major parties in the EP, and the largest unionist party in the north. Furhtermore, Paisley Durkin et all are the voice of unionism, with Trimble gone, there is no voice of moderate unionism anymore, nor does there seem to be one in the near future. Paisley is more powerful than at any time since the days of the UWC.

Republicans have been quick to tout the lack of their vote collasping last election, as proof that SF are the party of peace and the future, however the fact is they now face a hardline, popular supported Unionist block led by Paisley, with little chance of this changing, unless something radical happens, for the near future. SF's failure has been the alienation of the moderates on both sides, and now they face Paisley.

The suggestion that Paisley will fade into obscurity ignores the fact that the "Honourable Rev" has been the elephant in the corner of Northern Ireland for the past 15 odd years, and now the elephant has the floor, because both sides have disenfranchised the middle ground.

Paisley isn't going anywhere, he's the unfortunate reality, what SF's indifference has sown, he has reaped, and the suggest that he will now toddle off to obscurity when his power has rarly been greater, is well, I'm sorry a little naive.

Sand

Judging by the obvious prejudice displayed in your posts, I would imagine this is more of an opinion than a fact. How can you deny that if the IRA have decomissioned then regardless of what happened, a u-turn would have ruined SF? I mean, if they say they have destroyed their weapons and then go back to business as usual then nobody would ever deal with SF again. Furthermore, I believe that SF would have lost serious support as people would no longer believe that SF could bring them peace. (And like people said, that is what most people up there want after all)

A)The only prejudice in my posts regarding SFIRA and more generally Northern Ireland is directed against scumbag, anti-democratic, crinimal terrorist filth.

B)SFIRA and their activities come under this heading by virture of their *actions* perfectly. Hence its not prejudice which is directed against a group regardless of their actions, but morals which are dependant upon actions.

C)If you can point out why a "commander" in an "army" supposedly on ceasefire is ordering his men to kill people, supported by SFIRA intimidation, then you might have grounds to complain about opinion and fact. If you can point out where the IMC are lying about SFIRA still recruiting, training and equipping you mgiht have a point. If you can point out where SFIRA are not still beating kids almost to death for "anti-social behavior" - whilst charmingly campaigning against ASBOs then you might have a point.

D)SFIRA would have only promised to decomission in December. They promised to decomission within 2 years of the GFA and failed. They promised theyd decomission if Trimble entered government with them. They failed. SFIRA promises are worth exactly **** all. No really, theyre worth absolutely nothing. Less than nothing. SFIRA are all promises and **** all else.

E)Its typcial of SFIRA thinking and thus laughable that you consider decomissioning a bad idea because you want to leave the option of going back to Omaghs, Warringtons, Kingsmills and Enniskillens without leaving SFIRA open to the charge of hypocrisy in previously embracing constitutional democracy. I mean, you accuse me of having a low opinion of provos - which I do - and then you credit them with being that crooked and dishonest in their thinking? And ask why wont I trust SFIRAs mission for peace?!?!?!

D)Then with some twisted thinking you argue that if SFIRA disarmed and embraced democracy, people would not support them because they want a party that can bring them peace? Ah yeah, the problem in Northern Ireland wasnt that heavily armed scuimbags were murdering innocent people for sectrarian hatreds, it was because there wasnt enough heavily armed scumbags for peace to prevail. These are some classic gems of provo philosophy youre presenting. Peace through terrorism? Stregnth through ignorance? Happiness through oppression? Justice through violence?

Hobbes

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Paisley is just doing what he has done for the last 4 decades... impeding progress. Nothing new there. Paisley and his merry band are not adverse to siding with terrorists.. as long as they are his terrorists!

yea exactly.. I found his comment of "keep out of the north" (sic) to Bertie funny. I have no problem with that, lets withdraw all the cash we send up north.

Villain

Well I was away in Greece for the last week so haven't got many news updates but has there been any arrests in relation to the Northern Bank Robbery because after reading MyCrofts last few posts it would seem members of the IRA have been convicted of the robbery??

If there hasn't been any breakthroughs I really find it hard to believe that the PSNI haven't found any more of the money other than that in the PSNI country club I mean if they think they know who done it surely to god they would have got some money back by now??


I believe that SF could have delivered a peace deal last december that would have seen an end to the IRA but only if Paisley had wanted a deal. I'm not saying Paisley was the only issue but he was the biggest one.

murphaph

irish1 wrote:

I believe that SF could have delivered a peace deal last december that would have seen an end to the IRA but only if Paisley had wanted a deal. I'm not saying Paisley was the only issue but he was the biggest one.

Oh ffs. This is tiresome. SFIRA have the guns. The DUP, *****rs though they may be (like most politicians) do not. End of.

@Hobbes

What cash do we send up north?

Hobbes

murphaph wrote:

@Hobbes

What cash do we send up north?

ROI gives NI cash for various things.

Villain

murphaph wrote:

Oh ffs. This is tiresome. SFIRA have the guns. The DUP, *****rs though they may be (like most politicians) do not. End of.

@Hobbes

What cash do we send up north?

Murphaph the IRA may have the guns but Paisley has the mandate of the majority of Unionists in NI, without him agreeing there is no deal and IMO if he had agreed to allow clergy see decommisioning take place instead of insisting on photographs we would be in a very different situation right now.