Poor Alex

Sand

Father Alex Reid, one of the "independant" witnesses appointed by persons unknown (actually it was SFIRA) to tell us they cant tell us what they saw, where the saw it or when they saw it but they definitly saw it, announced his determinatation to beat Jonathan Woodgates record for own goals per appearance.

Firstly he joined up last Wenesday with his partner in crime Rev. Harold Good at a meeting in South Belfast, designed to reassure grassroots Unionist support that the IRA had indeed decomissioned its armoury. He got into an argument with William Frazer, who lost his father, two uncles and two cousins who were all murdered by the South Armagh IRA. William Frazer now capaigns for FAIR, which represents victims of the IRA in South Armagh. I think its clear from the website, and indeed his argument with Reid, that William Frazer is deeply angered by the murders of his family - which is to be expected. Reid was seemingly rattled by the accusations Frazer threw at him, asking why Protestants should believe a Redemptionist priest from Clonard monastary where "weapons were fired and where priests at funerals had spoken of IRA heroes".

Reid then went into Provo mode, arguing that the IRA only fighting the British occupier, that it was completely against their philosophy to ever attack a member of the unionist or Protestant community. This did nothing to calm Frazer (did nothing to disperse the claims about the Provo sympathies of Clonard monastary either tbh), who said that the two churchmen were putting the IRA on a pedestal for giving up their weapons and forgetting they had killed 1,800 people.

Reid then announced he was going to do some straight talking, and slowly built up a rant - dodging challenges from members of audience whose interruptions could have saved him - which reached its peak when Reid announced that Unionists treated Catholics like the Nazis treated Jews, that his audience came from a community that should be absolutely ashamed of itself, and the unionist community was in the same category as the Nazis. Frazer (who had done his best to interrupt Reid with questions about massacres and the butchering of Protestants in South Armagh - I assume he was referring to incidents like Kingsmills) at this point left the meeting and refused to return. Interestingly, Frazer in his role as a campaigner was asked for his reaction to the supposed IRA decommisioning by the BBC and remarked it was more important the mindset was gone. Fr. Reid's attitude will not have reassured him.

Normally when a public figure has made a hamse of a public appearance this is where youd stop to give an opinion, but wait theres more.

Father Reid also gave an interview to Hearts and Minds in Northern Ireland where he argued that SFIRA had not carried out the Northern bank raid, because the leadership had told him they did not and because bank robberies for profit were against the whole philosophy of the IRA. Well, theres no convictions yet you might say, and priests are supposed to see the best in people even if it seems helplessly naive at times.

But wait theres still more, he then went on to excuse punishment attacks by SFIRA, saying that there is no acceptable law enforcement alternative in NI other than taking kids up an alleyway and beating them with iron bars before shooting them Padre Pio style - one must assume Reid appreciates the religious nature of the local vigilantes.

So basically, Reid has completely sacrificed his claim to be an independant witness. Effectively, he would believe anything SFIRA tell him so as a witness hes not worth listening to. Also, he seems to regard unionists/protestants as Nazis, and believes that Stormont rounded up Catholics, made them wear yellow stars, committed genocide using death camps, and probably invaded Poland. And that they as a community should be ashamed of themselves. SFIRA on the other hand were whiter than white and never committed any wrong.

Hes scored a series of shocking own goals, seemingly doing his best to singlehandly undermine any prospect of speedy Unionist engagement in the aftermath of SFIRAs apparent decommissioning. The reaction of the main Unionist politicians was fairly predictableYou would think he would have learned from the Presidents feck up a while back. Calling people Nazis isnt going to win them over. Saying what a bunch of great guys SFIRA are isnt going to portray you as being objective in relation to them and their actions/intentions. The DUP initially questioned Reid and Goods independance and were shouted down. With Reid at least, theyre now going to have an absolute field day. Frazer has given his side of the story on that FAIR website, and I can imagine people, especially Unionists, are going to be more sympathetic to Frazer than to Reid - though Frazers claims that he listened until Reid called unionists Nazis goes against the reported version of events. He was involved in an argument with Reid prior to that.

For people who need to be convinced that some unknown amount of weapons - apparently in line with estimates with an unknown margin of error/tolerance, somewhere between 1 and infinity - were decommissioned it seems its all up to Rev. Harold Good, who whilst seeming to be a very decent man is not going to be edified in the eyes of doubters by his association with Fr. Reid.

walshb

The bottom line is that the weapons have been verified as gone, by two witnesses...one from either side. When will the Unionists be happy???, I say never because it has got nothing to do with weapons or paramilitaries. It has everything to do with pure hatred of Irish people, deep rooted hatred. No matter what, the Unionists will not want to share power. That's where the own goal is as far as I'm concerned. I'm not a big Sinn Fein supporter, to be honest I think the bank raid, Colombia 3, McCartney murder have discredited them a hell of a lot and the fact that Adams and McGuinness stood by them thru this says it all really, that The IRA and Sinn Fein are two sides of the same coin.

However, terrible as it may sound, had the IRA not existed and not fought for equal rights in Ireland, we would never be where we are today. Catholics would still be very much 2nd class citizens, they probably would still be unable to vote, or unable to have their bins collected. That's how bad it was
The only thing now is that the vast majority of people, myself include firmly believe that there is absolute no need for the IRA or the Loyalist paramilitaries to exist and until they are banished forever, there will never be a chance for peace. We live in a democracy and that should mean no terrorism and peace and harmony for every citizen...people are plain fed up at the moment. Frazer lost loved ones as did many many people up the North, here in the Republic and across the ater. We can't forget that, but we have to move on and engage in dialogue...there is no other way...people have to put the past behind them and move on positively without ever the threat of a return to violence. As for Reid's comments about the Nazi's being like the Unionists, however much he felt this was the case, he still should not have said it...it does not apply to every single Unionist or Protestant. And we all know how merciful and compassionate the Catholic church have been thru the yrs, do we NOT!!!!!

A Dub in Glasgo

Use of the quotes is rather telling on the motives of the original post

Fr Alex is without doubt a Republican.
I doubt that he would support violence though just like the late Cardinal O Fiach was a Republican who wouldnt either.

He's no different to others who demand transparent evidence when statements are made that in his view are unhelpfull to the peace process as he see's it.

That said, it's clear he has not got the same degree in spin or pc ism's as most politicians do.
I wouldnt hold that against him,just because he's not afraid to put his foot in it by saying what he thinks in public as opposed to thinking it in private like a two faced politician might.

He probably recognised that his recent straight talking from his perspective was a step too far in terms of its lack of helpfullness though.

By the way from seeing the reports on this on BBC NI last night some unionists at the meeting where he made the nazi reference didnt leave and actually enjoyed the meeting for its frankness.
I'd like to have been there too, to be honest.

Sponge Bob

Sand wrote:

Father Alex Reid, one of the "independant" witnesses appointed by persons unknown (actually it was SFIRA) to tell us they cant tell us what they saw, where the saw it or when they saw it but they definitly saw it, announced his determinatation to beat Jonathan Woodgates record for own goals per appearance.

Firstly he joined up last Wenesday with his partner in crime Rev. Harold Good at a meeting in South Belfast, designed to reassure grassroots Unionist support that the IRA had indeed decomissioned its armoury. He got into an argument with William Frazer, who lost his father, two uncles and two cousins who were all murdered by the South Armagh IRA. William Frazer now capaigns for FAIR, which represents victims of the IRA in South Armagh. I think its clear from the website, and indeed his argument with Reid, that William Frazer is deeply angered by the murders of his family - which is to be expected. Reid was seemingly rattled by the accusations Frazer threw at him, asking why Protestants should believe a Redemptionist priest from Clonard monastary where "weapons were fired and where priests at funerals had spoken of IRA heroes".

Reid then went into Provo mode, arguing that the IRA only fighting the British occupier, that it was completely against their philosophy to ever attack a member of the unionist or Protestant community. This did nothing to calm Frazer (did nothing to disperse the claims about the Provo sympathies of Clonard monastary either tbh), who said that the two churchmen were putting the IRA on a pedestal for giving up their weapons and forgetting they had killed 1,800 people.

Reid then announced he was going to do some straight talking, and slowly built up a rant - dodging challenges from members of audience whose interruptions could have saved him - which reached its peak when Reid announced that Unionists treated Catholics like the Nazis treated Jews, that his audience came from a community that should be absolutely ashamed of itself, and the unionist community was in the same category as the Nazis. Frazer (who had done his best to interrupt Reid with questions about massacres and the butchering of Protestants in South Armagh - I assume he was referring to incidents like Kingsmills) at this point left the meeting and refused to return. Interestingly, Frazer in his role as a campaigner was asked for his reaction to the supposed IRA decommisioning by the BBC and remarked it was more important the mindset was gone. Fr. Reid's attitude will not have reassured him.

Normally when a public figure has made a hamse of a public appearance this is where youd stop to give an opinion, but wait theres more.

Father Reid also gave an interview to Hearts and Minds in Northern Ireland where he argued that SFIRA had not carried out the Northern bank raid, because the leadership had told him they did not and because bank robberies for profit were against the whole philosophy of the IRA. Well, theres no convictions yet you might say, and priests are supposed to see the best in people even if it seems helplessly naive at times.

But wait theres still more, he then went on to excuse punishment attacks by SFIRA, saying that there is no acceptable law enforcement alternative in NI other than taking kids up an alleyway and beating them with iron bars before shooting them Padre Pio style - one must assume Reid appreciates the religious nature of the local vigilantes.

So basically, Reid has completely sacrificed his claim to be an independant witness. Effectively, he would believe anything SFIRA tell him so as a witness hes not worth listening to. Also, he seems to regard unionists/protestants as Nazis, and believes that Stormont rounded up Catholics, made them wear yellow stars, committed genocide using death camps, and probably invaded Poland. And that they as a community should be ashamed of themselves. SFIRA on the other hand were whiter than white and never committed any wrong.

Hes scored a series of shocking own goals, seemingly doing his best to singlehandly undermine any prospect of speedy Unionist engagement in the aftermath of SFIRAs apparent decommissioning. The reaction of the main Unionist politicians was fairly predictableYou would think he would have learned from the Presidents feck up a while back. Calling people Nazis isnt going to win them over. Saying what a bunch of great guys SFIRA are isnt going to portray you as being objective in relation to them and their actions/intentions. The DUP initially questioned Reid and Goods independance and were shouted down. With Reid at least, theyre now going to have an absolute field day. Frazer has given his side of the story on that FAIR website, and I can imagine people, especially Unionists, are going to be more sympathetic to Frazer than to Reid - though Frazers claims that he listened until Reid called unionists Nazis goes against the reported version of events. He was involved in an argument with Reid prior to that.

For people who need to be convinced that some unknown amount of weapons - apparently in line with estimates with an unknown margin of error/tolerance, somewhere between 1 and infinity - were decommissioned it seems its all up to Rev. Harold Good, who whilst seeming to be a very decent man is not going to be edified in the eyes of doubters by his association with Fr. Reid.

Is there a point to the bit I quoted above or is it all normal negative naysaying unionist **** ????

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

You know, who the hell cares what people, who have other motives, think. The fact of the matter is the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning have decreed that the IRA has decommissioned. that is good enough for me and it should be good enough for all the democrats as that is what the majority of people on this island agreed. Obviously some people will never be happy :rolleyes:

The 2 clergy men present was an additional requirement and a bonus.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

On what basis?

There was never any requirement for additional witnesses to decommissioning. The people agreed on the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to decide. Even with this bonus of this witnessing, you do not trust the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning? Why?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Doctor Benway

Guys - it's ALEC Reid, not Alex.

A Dub in Glasgo

If you trust the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, what does it matter that some folk will try and smear one of the witnesses? It is an irrelevance, a red-herring, a smokescreen. It is pretty clear that the OP does not believe the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I'd say though that you were probably unaware of him to a large extent, because any one that is familiar with him would know how close he is to the Republican movement and how instrumental he was in the background to the peace process-Most people in NI would know of and be aware of his republican beliefs.

So when this story broke I felt sorry for the man having been goaded into saying that Unionists were like Nazis by a man who claims nothing bad ever happened to Catholics. So I felt really sorry for a guy who was supposed to be independent and had been ruined by one stupid statement.

I think thats probably the right attitude to have because as I said he's only human,he has his beliefs,he doesnt condone violence-he's like a lot of people who rather than condone it, understands it and trys to be pragmatic in the background to end it.Albeit with a sloppy approach to getting his message across about this.But then like I said he's not had the benefit of the experts presentation polish.

But to find out then what he thought of punishment beatings, Northern Bank robbery etc, has totally thrown me for six. If he trusts the IRA on the Northern Bank how the hell am I supposed to take his word that he believes that they got rid of all their weapons.

You don't ,there was a protestant minister standing beside him, you can take his if you want.They both agree.

BTW Sand, excellent summing up of the whole thing.

I would qualify that by saying it's an opinion piece.
Sands summing up is from a perspective and most of it is an opinion and some would read it (having experience of his views on this topic from posts on this board) as a loaded opinion ie not neutral but skewed to an already formed opinion.
Others have equal entitlements to form a different opinion based on their different perspective.

As Regards Fr Alex's views on the Northern robbery,I understand that he has conceded that individuals in the IRA may have been involved but that it is his understanding that the robbery in its manner and timing would be against the ethos of the IRA.
Thats irrespective of what senior members of the Republican movement may have been aware of its planning.
Fr Alex is entitled to form a view and to be frank he's as entitled to require exacting evidence rather than what is there at present before forming a conclusive view.

Sand

this has damaged the transparency of the process for a section of people in the North.

Well there is no transparency or verifiability tbh. Were simply asked to take the word of a man like Reid, who has been shown to be completely unobjective when it comes to the Provos. Harold Good seems like a decent sort, but again he was appointed by SFIRA so that makes it difficult for him to appear independant. The commission refuses to even mention the margin of error that it works within when it says the numbers it apparently saw were within tolerance of estimates, its so afraid of embarrassing or upsetting SFIRA. Its hard to champion the commissions independance when it is so clearly in thrall to the wishes of the group it is apparently observing.

The governments stated consistently that decommissioning had to be a transparent proccess, but it hasnt been. All that has been sacrificed to save the blushes of SFIRA. There is not a single shred of proof beyond people like Reid saying "I saw something, somewhere, at some point in time, as the appointee of people I cannot mention that has convinced me decomissioing has occured". Even if Reid word was cast iron to Unionists and he wasnt an out and out provo himself, it would still be only his word. The most honest men can be tricked. SFIRA have been careful not to leave a single shred of independant verification. And thats why its so hard to sway Unionists when they consider the Provos history of pathological deceit, so Reids outbursts are all the more harmful because they undermine Good by his association with the man.

I doubt that he would support violence though just like the late Cardinal O Fiach was a Republican who wouldnt either.

Maybe he simply justifies it and venerates violent men instead. Hes a firm supporter of the peace proccess I agree, but Ive yet to ever hear of him criticising SFIRA, he doesnt even believe they attacked non-military targets apparently. For a representitive of the supposed Prince of Peace, hes fairly willing to champion terrorists.

Use of the quotes is rather telling on the motives of the original post

And.....

Who was I supposed to quote, Gerry Adams?

However, terrible as it may sound, had the IRA not existed and not fought for equal rights in Ireland, we would never be where we are today. Catholics would still be very much 2nd class citizens, they probably would still be unable to vote, or unable to have their bins collected. That's how bad it was

Thats mistaken actually, though a common deceit spread by SFIRA, the majority of discriminatory practices were either reformed or in the process of being reformed in the late 60s and very early 70s in the hey day of the civil rights marches, and there is no reason to think that politics could not rectify remaining issues. The Provos kicked off in the big way in the early-mid 70s, after which the pace of reform withered as the major concern in NI became terrorism, not civil rights. SFIRA are not, and never have been, interested in civil rights. They have only ever been interested in uniting Ireland by force, regardless of how many must be murdered.

I say never because it has got nothing to do with weapons or paramilitaries. It has everything to do with pure hatred of Irish people, deep rooted hatred.

The Unionists have more right to feel there is a deep unreasoning hatred of them from Provos when supposed peaceful moderates like Reid are calling them Nazis and saying they should be ashamed of themselves, and blatantly whitewashing wrongs committed by SFIRA. What must the really dangerous hardmen think?

The unreasoning aspect of that hatred is all the more clear when you consider what Frazer noted on his website - the Unionists are by and large proud of their efforts in both world wars, that it was the Republicans who were colluding with the *actual* Nazis, and Reid shouldnt be throwing too many stones when his Catholic Church's less than valiant relationship with the *actual* Nazis is remembered.

Sand

Sand wrote:

Maybe he simply justifies it and venerates violent men instead. Hes a firm supporter of the peace proccess I agree, but Ive yet to ever hear of him criticising SFIRA, he doesnt even believe they attacked non-military targets apparently. For a representitive of the supposed Prince of Peace, hes fairly willing to champion terrorists.

In fairness thats more of a maybe and your conclusion rather than a fact.
What he believes they did and what he believes in are two different things.
Given the role that he plays-openly criticising Republicans would be counter productive to that role of shall we say directing Republicans more on the path that they are going in now than in the one that they were on.

Your use of the description "championing" is an exact example of where you are expressing an opinion which would be at odds with mine ie that he has a role and that in that role theres no need to be openly shouting at the pulpit Wrong Wrong Wrong .

He may well be saying those kind of things in private cognisant of an effective method of persuasion.
Ergo I think to say he is championing violence simply because he doesnt do what you want him to do in public ie condemn it is a rash judgement to make.

You must remember that softly softly catchey wormy.I see a different perspective to what he's about and I see his flaws in the as you put it yourself the right haims he has made of his presentation to the other side of the fence.
He'd have done well to have not done that-but then he was poked into some straight talking I suppose like we all can be(and without the training that others undergo toavoid that) .However it hasn't deflected from the main thrust of his purpose from what I can see and that is to direct Republicans further on the path that they are going.

breandan

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

So the fact that he (rightly or wrongly) believes the IRA on one issue means that he must be lying on the other, is that what your saying?
If that is your view then if I was Fr Reid I wouldnt worry to much about what you think as you obviously have an agenda anyways and what he says would only be falling on deaf ears.

TomF

I thought Fr. Reid was right on the money in his comments about the treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland over the years, especially since partition. My own wife is from Belfast and has her own stories of bigotry and mistreatment toward herself and her family and friends by many in the majority population. It is maddening to hear of nothing but IRA wrong-doings when we all know that the support for the IRA was a response to violence done to Catholics by unionists (small initial), and that the IRA would never have flourished as it did if there was not much injustice being done. We really need an extended period, I think, of media treatment of exactly what happened to Catholics in the North, with no ersatz attempt at "balanced coverage" by listing a tit-for-tat of IRA outrages to counteract any hurt feelings because of listed unionist bigotry and obstruction of the normal advance of Catholics in that society. Perhaps it would not hurt to get into the same kind of history of the lower 26 counties, too. I know that Protestants pulled-out of places like Bandon and Co. Cavan during the Troubles and after partition, but within living memory in Roscrea, Co. Tipperary, Protestant shop owners still posted help wanted notices with the note that no Catholic need apply. Fr. Reid went too far in comparing Unionists to Nazis, but he was fairly heated by that time and he reached for the first comparison he could think of. (We are used, on this board, to the laughable characterisation of U.S. figures and institutions as "fascist" so Fr. Reid's comment shouldn't a total shock to us.)

DublinWriter

walshb wrote:

When will the Unionists be happy???

NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!

Seriously, I think Unionists would be happier with the IRA still around because at present they've lost their 'bogeyman' and don't have an excuse to crow anymore.

Sand

Given the role that he plays-openly criticising Republicans would be counter productive to that role of shall we say directing Republicans more on the path that they are going in now than in the one that they were on.

Hes one of the few who *can* criticise the Provos and be actually listened to. Hes quite clearly a die hard Provo in his politics, so if he were to say "Yes, punishment beatings are reprehensible. The PSNI, however imperfect, are a better alternative to vigilantes and people should go to them" theres a decent chance it might actually be noted. Wouldnt change overnight, but it would maybe open a debate in the Provo mindset. Whereas if anyone else criticises SFIRA its water of a ducks back. The governments wouldnt be listened to, unionists would never ever be listened to, police would never be listened to. The McCartneys are being attacked in their own homes for criticiing SFIRA.

An example is Sponge Bobs wonderful contribution....

Is there a point to the bit I quoted above or is it all normal negative naysaying unionist **** ????

Provos completely ignore external opinion, so its doubly dissapointing when supposed Christian leaders like Reid, who has deep roots with the Provos, cant find it in his heart to actually urge people not to support punishment beatings. And his comments on punishment beatings were in the present tense, that there *is* no alternative to them. This only reinforces the SFIRA line after incidents like the McCartney murder.

Your use of the description "championing" is an exact example of where you are expressing an opinion which would be at odds with mine ie that he has a role and that in that role theres no need to be openly shouting at the pulpit Wrong Wrong Wrong .

I dont think his defence of SFIRA as being whiter than white sounded like an act. The unionist were Nazis, SFIRA were the reluctant warriors forced to fight by these Nazi bastards, but honourably restricting themselves to only fighting the British occupier, they never attacked the unionist community. If thats not championing SFIRA, I dont know what is...

And again, in his role he is one of the few who can criticise. If people like him dont even restrain themselves from supporting SFIRAs line, then SFIRA will go through the entire proccess without any criticism they do not instinctively reject. Have the Provos ever listened to say Trimble, and said - Hmmm, the mans got a point there. Or is it simply "Ah, shure they hate us. Those stuck up prods dont want to share power with poor old Catholics".

You must remember that softly softly catchey wormy.

The proccess doenst bear that out. We had 10 years of this crap until the McCartney murder, the bank robbery and the sudden use of the stick over the carrot on SFIRA. Within months we get SFIRAs surrender of its right to murder and its weapons. If you try be nice to SFIRA theyll exploit you. Stick is far more effective with them than carrot.

I thought Fr. Reid was right on the money in his comments about the treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland over the years, especially since partition. My own wife is from Belfast and has her own stories of bigotry and mistreatment toward herself and her family and friends by many in the majority population.

Really? I thought it was a stupid and wild exaggeration of reality. The Nazis were the Nazis. They worked pretty damn hard at building a reputation of premeditated inhumane evil on a scale ( Stalin & Pol Pot maybe?) rarely if ever matched. Stormont were just run of the mill bigots.

We really need an extended period, I think, of media treatment of exactly what happened to Catholics in the North, with no ersatz attempt at "balanced coverage" by listing a tit-for-tat of IRA outrages to counteract any hurt feelings because of listed unionist bigotry and obstruction of the normal advance of Catholics in that society. Perhaps it would not hurt to get into the same kind of history of the lower 26 counties, too. I know that Protestants pulled-out of places like Bandon and Co. Cavan during the Troubles and after partition, but within living memory in Roscrea, Co. Tipperary, Protestant shop owners still posted help wanted notices with the note that no Catholic need apply.

Youre right. Theres a book that seems to be exactly what youre looking for called "I Met Murder on the Way". You can get it in bookshops for 13.95 Euro, or you can write to the author Alan Stanley, Aimhirgin, Co Carlow and he will mail it to you, which is rather decent.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Cork

Sand wrote:

The proccess doenst bear that out. We had 10 years of this crap until the McCartney murder, the bank robbery and the sudden use of the stick over the carrot on SFIRA. Within months we get SFIRAs surrender of its right to murder and its weapons. If you try be nice to SFIRA theyll exploit you. Stick is far more effective with them than carrot.

The governments did turn a blind eye to provo criminality. But I hope the Assets Recovery Agancy and Criminal Assets Bureau will be given all the resources they require to track down the proceeds of provo criminality.

Alex Reid was right to apologise. But his credabillity as an eye wittness has been pretty much damaged.


Fr Reid believes IRA denials about Belfast bank heist. He is entitled to his views. He is at odds with the vast majority of Irish people on this one - but again he is entitled to his beliefs.

Sand

Sand wrote:

Hes one of the few who *can* criticise the Provos and be actually listened to.

In private.Doing so in public would be counter productive.

Hes quite clearly a die hard Provo in his politics,

How do you reach that conclusion without pointing to where he condones violence.I've already said why it's obvious to me that he wouldnt state his distaste for it in public.It would be damaging to the role he wants.

so if he were to say "Yes, punishment beatings are reprehensible. The PSNI, however imperfect, are a better alternative to vigilantes and people should go to them" theres a decent chance it might actually be noted.

Perhaps it would be noted if he did so.
However again the idea is to use influence in private and it is clear that thats working.
On the other hand its not clear that he is a provo ie that he condones violence.

Wouldnt change overnight, but it would maybe open a debate in the Provo mindset. Whereas if anyone else criticises SFIRA its water of a ducks back. The governments wouldnt be listened to, unionists would never ever be listened to, police would never be listened to.

You clearly have no sense of pragmatism have you? oh you do, actually except you are applying it in a one sided fashion.You expect Fr Reid to be pragmatic towards unionists and yet not be pragmatic in his dealings with the provo's.According to you he shouldnt be outspoken to unionists-he shouldnt speak his mind in public to them yet you demand a different approach to his public words to Republicans...

Again to be frank with you he has a role-I dont think your perception of Republicanism and your avowed hatrid of it would allow you to make allowances for what would and what wouldnt make it easier for Fr Reid to make the contribution that he is making.

The McCartneys are being attacked in their own homes for criticiing SFIRA.

Whats that got to do with Fr Reids role in the peace process?? His public quiet on the IRA as opposed his private campaign of persuasion for them to end their activities is bearing fruit.

Provos completely ignore external opinion, so its doubly dissapointing when supposed Christian leaders like Reid, who has deep roots with the Provos, cant find it in his heart to actually urge people not to support punishment beatings. And his comments on punishment beatings were in the present tense, that there *is* no alternative to them. This only reinforces the SFIRA line after incidents like the McCartney murder.

see my earlier reply, you are continuing to ignore the practical reality of what gets results.
You are ignoring it in favour of an apparent approach that just makes die hards more diehard.

I dont think his defence of SFIRA as being whiter than white sounded like an act.

He is a Republican-he does have republican views.That does not extend to murder.His private background role doesnt permit being unpragmatic in the way you want him to be.

The unionist were Nazis, SFIRA were the reluctant warriors forced to fight by these Nazi bastards, but honourably restricting themselves to only fighting the British occupier, they never attacked the unionist community. If thats not championing SFIRA, I dont know what is...

Have you never ever said anything out of turn or gone too far in a discussion? If you say no I simply wont believe you-sorry.
As regards his over hyperbolised attack on how the unionists behaved towards catholics for decades-theres plenty of anecdotal evidence for him or any Republican to have that view.
Grant it, it's only changing slowly and it would have changed a lot sooner due to EU member ship and the pervasiveness of the media these days if the IRA had copped on decades earlier that only an extreme element agreed with their methods.

And again, in his role he is one of the few who can criticise. If people like him dont even restrain themselves from supporting SFIRAs line, then SFIRA will go through the entire proccess without any criticism they do not instinctively reject. Have the Provos ever listened to say Trimble, and said - Hmmm, the mans got a point there. Or is it simply "Ah, shure they hate us. Those stuck up prods dont want to share power with poor old Catholics".

I wont repeat what I've said already about Fr Reids role.
As regards who the provo's listen to...I would have thought the very point you are trying to make there underlines the reason why FR Reid should continue to perform his background role in the way he is and not to be doing and saying the stuff you are urging.
His role is clearly delivering a lot more goods than what you are proposing.The latter has a very bad track record as opposed to the former.

The proccess doenst bear that out. We had 10 years of this crap until the McCartney murder, the bank robbery and the sudden use of the stick over the carrot on SFIRA. Within months we get SFIRAs surrender of its right to murder and its weapons.

Ah but the pervasiveness of the media and the success of the Gardaí,the CAB and its NI equivalent is what will deal with that.

Really? I thought it was a stupid and wild exaggeration of reality. The Nazis were the Nazis. They worked pretty damn hard at building a reputation of premeditated inhumane evil on a scale ( Stalin & Pol Pot maybe?) rarely if ever matched. Stormont were just run of the mill bigots.

Again I'll have to ask you have you ever made a faux pax in conversation or argument with anybody? Because if you say you havent I simply wont believe you.
Everybody has gone too far at some point.
Fr Reid has backtracked from that statement and as I said before he's not got the polish that the experienced politicians have when public speaking and knowing what not to say and to say.

LordSutch

TomF wrote:

I thought Fr. Reid was right on the money in his comments about the treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland over the years, especially since partition.

As a Protestant person living in the South, I would like to give my perspective on Father Alec Reids' regretable comments!

Firstly, this the 60th anniversary of the defeat of the Nazi's by the allied nations of the world (excluding Southern ireland) and it is in this light that the Nazi comparrison was so distastefull to the very people that faught the Nazi's in the Second World War! and lets not forget that Belfast was hammered by the Luftwaffe on a regular basis and as a result thousands were killed without even going to fight on the Continent!
Admittedly there were tens of thousands Irish people from both sides of the border & religious divide who faught in both the Great War (1914-1918) and the Second world War and I can assure you Tom "None of them are or were Nazi's" So I say "Shame on Father Reid and indeed the Irish President" for using such utterly ignorant language! and as for Tom's message that I quote, well there are always two sides to the argument about the North and I can assure you Tom, Nazi's do not come into the equation.
By the way Tom: In 1921 20% of the Population here in the South was Protestant, but by 1975 Protestants made up only 2.5% of the population (due mainly to the insistance by the Roman Catholic Church + State that "Mixed Marriages" must result in Roman Catholic off-spring (by law)!
No wonder the Unionist/Prods feel a little edgy up North .......

Cork

ArthurF wrote:

"Shame on Father Reid and indeed the Irish President" for using such utterly ignorant language!

He and She apologised.

When is an apology not enough?

Maybe NI needs a forum like a Truth and reconcilliation Committee to discuss issues like past wrongs?

Sand

In private.Doing so in public would be counter productive.

Actually in public might be far more productive. On punishment beatings for example, in private SFIRA would take the view that the "community" has empowered them to beat people up. In public, people from the community might get a chance to air their own views. In the aftermath of McCartneys murder Maskey was lectured about "the community" fearing men in balaclavas far more than they feared the PSNI.

Reid could have either A) Limited his comments on punishment beatings to saying he did not support them, or Said something along the lines of what I said before, they theyre reprehensible and the PSNI is the way forward in terms of policing. Instead he chose option C) Support SFIRAs position that punishment beatings are a regrettable necessity. Publically. Which is very counter-productive when pressure should be applied to bring SFIRA into accepting the law.

You clearly have no sense of pragmatism have you? oh you do, actually except you are applying it in a one sided fashion.You expect Fr Reid to be pragmatic towards unionists and yet not be pragmatic in his dealings with the provo's.According to you he shouldnt be outspoken to unionists-he shouldnt speak his mind in public to them yet you demand a different approach to his public words to Republicans...

See above. Reid could have chosen A) in his public comments. He didnt have to choose option if it meant SFIRA would be back bombing the next day. Which they wont be.

Your definition of pragmatism seems to be keeping from upsetting SFIRA. My definition of pragmatism is keeping clearly in our sights where we want to the process to go and never easing the pressure until we reach it. Acceptable policing is where we need to be, and if after 11 years its still taboo for a central figure in the peace proccess to come out and say that punishment beatings are no longer jutifiable, and that the PSNI should be supported then how far has the proccess actually come? He certainly did not have to choose option C).

And I like how you claim hes speaking his mind to protestants. Well come back to that.

Again to be frank with you he has a role-I dont think your perception of Republicanism and your avowed hatrid of it would allow you to make allowances for what would and what wouldnt make it easier for Fr Reid to make the contribution that he is making.

A tipping point has been reached with the Provos imo. Endorsement of the PSNI is an inevitability. SFIRA have surrendered their violent mandate and their weapons ( cant be verified of course, but theres too much smoke for there to be no fire). Reid is not helping, publicly or privately by reinforcing SFIRAs old guard position on policing. He didnt have to reinforce it. He could simply have taken a view that he didnt support punishment beatings. Gerry Adams has claimed this himself in the past, though its harder to believe from the leader of the balaclaved boys doing it than from an apparently independant priest.

As I said above, movement on policing is going to come, its inevitable that communities are sick of McCartney style killings and assaults and intimidation. But dealing in private with SFIRA cuts out the community. Raising even the mildest criticism of the "unacceptable policing" mantra in public, Reid could help open a debate where people could speak openly and tell SFIRA "Yeah, cheers for beating our kids in the past, but no need for it anymore" or whatever formula of words is required to save SFIRAs blushes this time around. Reid, a well respected figure, instead made it *harder* for anyone else to stand up and say punishment beatings were unjustifiable.

Now, where in the above is my perception of how Reid could or could not have helped without compromising himself in error?

Have you never ever said anything out of turn or gone too far in a discussion? If you say no I simply wont believe you-sorry.

Again I'll have to ask you have you ever made a faux pax in conversation or argument with anybody? Because if you say you havent I simply wont believe you.
Everybody has gone too far at some point.
Fr Reid has backtracked from that statement and as I said before he's not got the polish that the experienced politicians have when public speaking and knowing what not to say and to say.

Earlier you said he was speaking his mind. He himself said he was going to do some straight talking and then launched into a rant that built up to the Nazi jibes, twice. Along with other insults.

Now its a faux pas. Just slipped out. His iron cast support for SFIRA must have just slipped out as well. Along with his justification for punishment beatings. I think youre right on both counts. He was speaking his mind, he does believe this stuff. I think youre also right on the faux pas, not that he said something he didnt believe but that he let slip out what he really believes.

Either way, it demonstrates that he is not an independant witness, and it doesnt help Good that he was viewed as being acceptable to the same people who selected Reid.

His role is clearly delivering a lot more goods than what you are proposing.The latter has a very bad track record as opposed to the former.

So SFIRA should go through the proccess without any criticism they might listen to? They should never be challenged on their justifications for, oh say punishment beatings, for example without being able to say "Shure thats unionist ****e!!!" They should be allowed to believe that if they commit murder, its not a crime? If a bank is robbed its only wrong if the Army Council doesnt get its cut?

And as I said before we had 10 years of lies, crap and excuses right up to SFIRA refusing to sign up to a deal that would ask it not to engage in criminality, and then when the sticks came out early this year suddenly they found it in their hearts to decommission and surrender their right to murder? The record of appeasing SFIRA is not littered with too many successes, other than destroying the moderate centerground in Northern Ireland that originally forged the peace proccess before being sacrificed in the name of "pragmatic" side deals with extremists.

Flex

ArthurF wrote:

By the way Tom: In 1921 20% of the Population here in the South was Protestant, but by 1975 Protestants made up only 2.5% of the population (due mainly to the insistance by the Roman Catholic Church + State that "Mixed Marriages" must result in Roman Catholic off-spring (by law)!
No wonder the Unionist/Prods feel a little edgy up North .......

Bull****!!! The protestant population was no more than 8% in the Free State and experienced its sharpest decline between 1910-1920, while ireland was still under British rule!!!!!and had been declining since the late 19th century. And the vatican passed tha law on mixed marriages, and it was practiced by catholics all over the world, not just in ireland. 20% my ass. :rolleyes:

I agree with what TomF posted btw

ratboy

his comments have put away all credibility he did have, no matter how good a man he is and i think he's a good man but wholly inequipped to deal with the pressures of public persona.

Sand

Sand wrote:

Actually in public might be far more productive. On punishment beatings for example, in private SFIRA would take the view that the "community" has empowered them to beat people up. In public, people from the community might get a chance to air their own views. In the aftermath of McCartneys murder Maskey was lectured about "the community" fearing men in balaclavas far more than they feared the PSNI.

You must be misunderstanding me.
Fr Reid =no public condemnations of Republicans =more influence with them=progress to todays position.

Reid could have either A) Limited his comments on punishment beatings to saying he did not support them, or Said something along the lines of what I said before, they theyre reprehensible and the PSNI is the way forward in terms of policing. Instead he chose option C) Support SFIRAs position that punishment beatings are a regrettable necessity. Publically. Which is very counter-productive when pressure should be applied to bring SFIRA into accepting the law.

As above.
I dont see the worry on not having the law applied to criminality.It's being increasingly applied as a certain farmer in the louth Armagh area is finding out with respect to his property portfolio.
Thats being done whilst not jepordising Fr Reids influence as he's not connected to it.

Your definition of pragmatism seems to be keeping from upsetting SFIRA. My definition of pragmatism is keeping clearly in our sights where we want to the process to go and never easing the pressure until we reach it. Acceptable policing is where we need to be, and if after 11 years its still taboo for a central figure in the peace proccess to come out and say that punishment beatings are no longer jutifiable, and that the PSNI should be supported then how far has the proccess actually come? He certainly did not have to choose option C).

Well pragmatism depends on the situation and in Fr Reids, it would be unpragmatic to be shouting down Republicans in public whilst trying to talk them down a certain road in private.It just wouldnt wash.
The rights and wrongs of that are a different subject entirely.
We are talking exclusively here about Fr Reids purpose and position.

And I like how you claim hes speaking his mind to protestants. Well come back to that.

Didnt a prominent member of FAIR and a protestant walk out of the meeting that he accused them of being nazis...
You should know thats what I meant.

A tipping point has been reached with the Provos imo. Endorsement of the PSNI is an inevitability. SFIRA have surrendered their violent mandate and their weapons ( cant be verified of course, but theres too much smoke for there to be no fire). Reid is not helping, publicly or privately by reinforcing SFIRAs old guard position on policing. He didnt have to reinforce it. He could simply have taken a view that he didnt support punishment beatings. Gerry Adams has claimed this himself in the past, though its harder to believe from the leader of the balaclaved boys doing it than from an apparently independant priest.

With respect here you go again with crafty suggestions as to what Fr Reid should be doing that would directly result in alienating him from Republicans and demolish his influence with them, an influence that is working.

As I said above, movement on policing is going to come, its inevitable that communities are sick of McCartney style killings and assaults and intimidation. But dealing in private with SFIRA cuts out the community. Raising even the mildest criticism of the "unacceptable policing" mantra in public, Reid could help open a debate where people could speak openly and tell SFIRA "Yeah, cheers for beating our kids in the past, but no need for it anymore" or whatever formula of words is required to save SFIRAs blushes this time around. Reid, a well respected figure, instead made it *harder* for anyone else to stand up and say punishment beatings were unjustifiable.

The problem with that sir is you are refusing to recognise the reality that hundreds of thousands of people in NI are well aware of these punishment beatings and McCartney and yet still vote SF.
Ergo your position vis vis Republicans being shown the door doesnt hold water.

The only consolation i can offer you is that the law is and will continue to be rigourously applied to the criminality associated with them.

Now, where in the above is my perception of how Reid could or could not have helped without compromising himself in error?

To be frank its wreaking in crafty suggestions as to how to compromise Fr Reids influence unnecessarilly with Republicans.I've already stated that above.

Earlier you said he was speaking his mind. He himself said he was going to do some straight talking and then launched into a rant that built up to the Nazi jibes, twice. Along with other insults.

Now its a faux pas. Just slipped out.

Erm its both speaking his mind and a faux pax-the two concepts are marryable you know.

His iron cast support for SFIRA must have just slipped out as well. Along with his justification for punishment beatings.

Hang on a second where did he say that he agree's with punishment beatings? Exactly where has he said they are the way to go?
If you are to take that approach to what is just analysis then,we may as well say the pope agreed with the nazis because he understood why some people were in the Hitler youth.

I think youre right on both counts. He was speaking his mind, he does believe this stuff. I think youre also right on the faux pas, not that he said something he didnt believe but that he let slip out what he really believes.

Certainly.
I'd imagine though that he did not have the cop on to realise the implication of the analogy.
Polished Gerry would never say something like that.
He may well think it though.

Either way, it demonstrates that he is not an independant witness, and it doesnt help Good that he was viewed as being acceptable to the same people who selected Reid.

Good is a true unionist and protestant.No one was under any illusion as to his Unionist credentials or in Fr Reids republican credentials.
I dont see your point here.Fr Reid making nazi faux pax's does not a liar of Harold Good make.

So SFIRA should go through the proccess without any criticism they might listen to? They should never be challenged on their justifications for, oh say punishment beatings, for example without being able to say "Shure thats unionist ****e!!!" They should be allowed to believe that if they commit murder, its not a crime? If a bank is robbed its only wrong if the Army Council doesnt get its cut?

Eh wheres this coming from? I'm only talking about Fr Reids role.
How are you extending that to every and anyone else?

And as I said before we had 10 years of lies, crap and excuses right up to SFIRA refusing to sign up to a deal that would ask it not to engage in criminality, and then when the sticks came out early this year suddenly they found it in their hearts to decommission and surrender their right to murder? The record of appeasing SFIRA is not littered with too many successes, other than destroying the moderate centerground in Northern Ireland that originally forged the peace proccess before being sacrificed in the name of "pragmatic" side deals with extremists.

Thats another Rant Sand and has nothing whatsoever to do with Fr Reid.
At the start of this post I explained that pragmatism in relation to FR Reids role ie Fr Reid being pragmatic in his lack of public denouncing of republicans has nothing whatsoever either to do with what evreybody and anybody else does.
Whats important is that Fr Reid is getting results.
It's up to the authorities to deal with the criminality issues and as I said they have every intention of doing exactly that.

hill16

Fr Reid was spot on calling Loyalists Nazis.Loyalists are sectarian and have strong links to C18 and the BNP in England.

ratboy

Nazis is too strong a term, they don't organise mass killings of nationalists.

A Dub in Glasgo

From Wikipedia

In pop culture, the term nazi (lowercase "n") can also be coupled with another word to imply overzealousness, aggression or hostility -- negative qualities often associated with the Nazi Party. Such usage was popularized in the November 2, 1995 episode of the successful 1990s sitcom Seinfeld. The plot centered around a soup stand vendor who dispenses his wares in a harsh manner, thus becoming the titular "Soup Nazi." Such usage of the term is often humorous, although it can also be a pejorative. Other examples include feminazi, grammar nazi, fashion nazi, and Econazi. Many criticize the use of such terms as they appear to diminish the crimes of Nazi Germany during the Second World War.

some people almost beg to be offended when they hear the description nazi

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Cork

Earthman wrote:

Whats important is that Fr Reid is getting results.
It's up to the authorities to deal with the criminality issues and as I said they have every intention of doing exactly that.

I believe it is to the people of NI (inc. the Church)to deal with the IRA & its criminality.

Fr. Reid made a mistake and he did in fairness apologise.

It is regretable - his credabillity has been damaged.

TomF

II found mention of the book recommended by Sand, "I met Murder
on the Way - The Story of the Pearsons of Coolacrease" by Alan Stanley.

It is about a violent IRA action in 1921 against a family of "Cooneyites" named Pearson who lived in Coolacrease House, Cadamstown, Co. Offaly. The farmhouse was burned and the two eldest sons were reportedly shot in the groin, in the presence of their family, and allowed to slowly bleed to death.

Someone posted this about the shooting:

"Richard and Abraham Pearson were shot dead by the IRA on 30th June 1921. I have a copy of the Military Court of Inquiry into their deaths and also a copy of the IRA report from the Offaly No 2 Brigade for that month. There is NOTHING in the court of inquiry about they being shot in the groin deliberatey. Their mother and sisters do state that they were taken out into the yard and put up against a wall and both shot.
The IRA report states that both men were shot after they fired on an IRA party trenching a road. They were shot for 'leveying war against forces of the Republic'. There was a substantial protestant [population] around the Birr area in 1921 and these were the only ones that were ever killed. A week before, the same IRA unit shot dead three local men for informing ALL of whom were catholics.
I can supply copies of both reports to anyone that wants them or the exact reference numbers in the Public Record Office in Kew and the Mulcahy papers in UCD."
http://www.politics.ie/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8310&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50

Another posting by a different author has this:

"Extract from the statement given by Michael Cordial QM 3RD Battalion, Offaly No 2 Brigade given to Bureau of Military History on 13/12/57....
'The Pearsons were a family who lived on an extensive farm or estate about one mile from Cadamstown and about 3 miles from Kinnitty. They were- particularly so, the male members of the family, father and three sons violently oppossed to the National Movement and they looked with contempt on local Volunteers or IRA men.
Things reached a climax sometime before the truce when they fired with shotguns on a small party of volunteers who were blocking a road. One volunteer, a man named Heeney was seriously wounded. A full report on the matter was made to Brigage staff who after serious deliberation ordered that the four male members of the Pearson family should be executed and their house burned down.
On 30th June 1921 a party of about 30 men were mobilised to implement the order. The house was surrounded and all women folk were removed from the scene. Fortunately for themselves the father and one son were away from home that day. The other two sons, Richard and Abraham were captured in a hayfield. They were brought into the yard and informed of the order. A firing party was appointed and the executions were there and then duly carried out. Next the house and outhouses were set on fire. Heavey explosions were heard while the house was burning which indicated that a large amount of ammunition was stored in it'.

Extract of witness statement given by LT Col C.R Wood RAMC given to military Court of Inquiry into death of Abraham Pratt Pearson held in Birr on 2/7/21......'I examined the wounds and found extensive wounds on left cheek,left shoulder,left thigh and lower third of left leg. In addition there was a wound through the abdomen.The latter wound had an entrance at this point and appeared to have its exit at the lower part of the back fracturing the lower part of the spinal column'. "
http://www.politics.ie/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8310&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75

Eoghan Harris did a review of the book, maybe more a reaction to it, in the Irish Independent. I could like Harris except for his insistence on terming Catholics, "Roman Catholics". You generally know you are reading or hearing something written or said by a Protestant in Ireland when you hear Catholics termed "Roman Catholics". For some reason, maybe because they both are so inclined to switch in a moment from reasonable speech to spitting rage, I often confuse Harris and Eamonn McCann.

Sand

Ok things are getting circular here, yes it is, not it isnt etc etc ad nauseum.

Fr Reid =no public condemnations of Republicans =more influence with them=progress to todays position.

This basically comes down to your position regarding his interview anyway. Let me ask you, when the Provos are ignoring anyone they can paint even loosely as a unionist, and those from the communitys intimidated by SFIRA punishment attacks are silenced by respect figures like Reid coming out and saying there is no alternative to punishment beatings where does the end of punishment beatings come from? The goodness of SFIRAs hearts? Do they agree to stop beating people as a political maneuvere but never recognise that they dont have the right?

You say he needs to be SFIRAs biggest fan in public. I say he could have protected his position without endorsing their reasoning behind punishment beatings, and without undermining anyone else who might criticise punishment beatings. Which is what hes done. He didnt just protect his position, he didnt remain merely neutral, he went in and attacked the view that there is no justification for punishment beatings.

The problem with that sir is you are refusing to recognise the reality that hundreds of thousands of people in NI are well aware of these punishment beatings and McCartney and yet still vote SF.
Ergo your position vis vis Republicans being shown the door doesnt hold water.

Which would have *NOTHING* to do with those punishment beatings, illegal arms, and terrorist groupings regularly being endorsed by respected figures like Reid would it? No, that would be wholly unconnected, one of those million monkeys with a million typewriters creating a shakespeare play type freak occurences. I mean, when people are consistently told by peacemakers like Reid that SFIRA are alright to beat people up it sinks in doesnt it? This is the whole problem with the peace proccess so far. And its just laughable that youre now justifying the means (cheerleading SFIRA) with the predictable end ( guys who commit punishment beatings polling 10% support).

As I said before, pragmatism is seeing where we want to go and moving in that direction at all times. People in love with the concept of another little side deal cant see the wood for the trees. Statements like what Reid made regarding punishment beatings move the proccess *back*, not forward.

The only consolation i can offer you is that the law is and will continue to be rigourously applied to the criminality associated with them.

Only until the next regrettably neccessary side deal that will bring us to the promised land though. If at all.

Hang on a second where did he say that he agree's with punishment beatings? Exactly where has he said they are the way to go?

He said there was no alternative to them in Catholic communitys.

However he tried to explain that the attacks occurred in the context of there being no police service in nationalist areas.

“There is an absence of a police force that has functionality in nationalist districts and people are going around who are raping, who are breaking into houses, who are joy-riding and knocking people down, who are terrorising the elderly people. There are drugs of course … Those people, whoever they are, they will do something about it themselves.”

There is a police force Reid, its called the PSNI.

If you are to take that approach to what is just analysis then,we may as well say the pope agreed with the nazis because he understood why some people were in the Hitler youth.

Yes, I could also carry that analogy forward and say it would only be comparable if the Pope said he understood that people *are* in the Nazi Youth because no one else was dealing with the Zionist menace. You used past tense, Reid clearly still believe there *is* no alternative.

Certainly.
I'd imagine though that he did not have the cop on to realise the implication of the analogy.
Polished Gerry would never say something like that.
He may well think it though.

And again, he doesnt have the polish to realise calling people Nazis is a boo boo, but is polished enough to play mind games with the Provos?

Eh wheres this coming from? I'm only talking about Fr Reids role.
How are you extending that to every and anyone else?

So am I. Im assumed Im allowed to deal with your point that Reid shouldnt criticise SFIRA without being accused of going off-topic? If Reid shouldnt criticise, and SFIRA ignores everyone else, that adds up to 0 criticism. Which is where the above is coming from.

Thats another Rant Sand and has nothing whatsoever to do with Fr Reid.

Again, see above. You claimed that Reids cheerleading was bringing results - do I simply not challenge that if I do not want to be accused of going off topic? And Reids approach has, as you noted yourself, brought about a wonderful situation where a sizable proportion of the electorate vote for punishment beatings. Yes, Reids style brings progress. Progress to where though? Not to a place where punishment beatings are eliminated.

Someone posted this about the shooting:

Oh Someone. I know him well, word is his bond. And indeed he has to hand the IRA version of events. The official version. Theyve never been afraid to take a hard look at themselves and be honest rather than expedient.

FFS Tom...That Orwell guy made a great point about books, the best ones being the ones that tell us what we already know. Id stay away from that "I met murder along the way" book if I were you, it could endanger your mindset. And it doesnt fit in with your demand for state propaganda regarding only Prodestant outrages against Catholics.

Sand

Sand wrote:

Ok things are getting circular here, yes it is, not it isnt etc etc ad nauseum.
This basically comes down to your position regarding his interview anyway. Let me ask you, when the Provos are ignoring anyone they can paint even loosely as a unionist, and those from the communitys intimidated by SFIRA punishment attacks are silenced by respect figures like Reid coming out and saying there is no alternative to punishment beatings where does the end of punishment beatings come from? The goodness of SFIRAs hearts? Do they agree to stop beating people as a political maneuvere but never recognise that they dont have the right?

I've already stated why I think Fr Reid would not want to be put in a position of publically criticising Republicans.
By not doing so and beavering away in the background he is getting and has got results.
As regards the punishment beatings its a known fact that most of these are being done by loyalists at the moment.You criticise Fr Reid for not publically condemning them even though in my opinion he'd be better off continuing on the course he's going as it has got results.
Let me ask you this then-Why are so many pepole voting for SF in the North? Is it because they know that things have came a long way since the early 90's and the 80's and they trust their politicians to continue at a pace acceptable to nationalist voters along the road to full normality.
It is a secret ballot, theres no intimidation in the booths.

You say he needs to be SFIRAs biggest fan in public.

I never said that and you should know I didn't-but this wouldn't be the first time in this thread that you add to what I say would it?

I say he could have protected his position without endorsing their reasoning behind punishment beatings, and without undermining anyone else who might criticise punishment beatings. Which is what hes done. He didnt just protect his position, he didnt remain merely neutral, he went in and attacked the view that there is no justification for punishment beatings.

Did he say they were right? I asked you that already and you havent shown me where he has said they were right.

Which would have *NOTHING* to do with those punishment beatings, illegal arms, and terrorist groupings regularly being endorsed by respected figures like Reid would it? No, that would be wholly unconnected, one of those million monkeys with a million typewriters creating a shakespeare play type freak occurences. I mean, when people are consistently told by peacemakers like Reid that SFIRA are alright to beat people up it sinks in doesnt it?

I have to ask you again to show me where Fr Reid has said its right.You've not done so, you've only shown where he has said he understands why its happening as those involved see no alternative.

This is the whole problem with the peace proccess so far. And its just laughable that youre now justifying the means (cheerleading SFIRA) with the predictable end ( guys who commit punishment beatings polling 10% support).

Quite frankly Sand your post is now descending into the realms of Bullshit.
Nowhere ever have I condoned IRA criminality or any criminality on this board and I'm not doing so now.
You are misrepresenting my position here wholesale.Credit me with some inteligence please.

As I said before, pragmatism is seeing where we want to go and moving in that direction at all times. People in love with the concept of another little side deal cant see the wood for the trees. Statements like what Reid made regarding punishment beatings move the proccess *back*, not forward.

You seem impervious to the progress made in the last 15 years as if to say we are still in the rut of several murders a week commonplace in the 80's.
You also seem impervious to what I've said regarding the best way to negotiate with people who are on a road you dont agree with and put them on the road that you do agree with.
But hey thats your perogative.
I've not agreed with any Republican violence and I can see how to encourage those I'd wholesale disagree with, to see the light.I'd see the merit in persistance with that stance.

He said there was no alternative to them in Catholic communitys.

Thats saying he understands why they happen, it's not saying they are right-but hey you put your own spin on it if you want.
I'll look at it objectively thanks.

There is a police force Reid, its called the PSNI.

It's Fr Reid but anyway, yes and it's only slowly becoming more acceptable to some.
Time will improve on that-Any Northern Republican will tell you that and theres hundreds of thousands of them according to recent votes.

Yes, I could also carry that analogy forward and say it would only be comparable if the Pope said he understood that people *are* in the Nazi Youth because no one else was dealing with the Zionist menace. You used past tense, Reid clearly still believe there *is* no alternative.

It's an evolution Sand not a revolution.If those beatings and associated criminality were such an issue, people wouldnt be voting for SF in the North.
There clearly *are* people willing to accept a certain level of beatings and criminality for now otherwise they wouldnt support SF.Thats probably the point that Fr Reid was making.
Most of those voters,I'd like to think will be of the opinion that there is some work going on in the background to end that activity and I've no doubt Fr Reid would be one of those background beavers.
The reduction in Republican beatings would be evidence of that.
The rest of the criminality is well capable of being looked after by the law.
I'd ask you not to misrepresent that position of mine as a condoning of punishment beatings when clearly it is not.

And again, he doesnt have the polish to realise calling people Nazis is a boo boo, but is polished enough to play mind games with the Provos?

You dont have to be a member of toast masters to have good negotiation skills.

So am I. Im assumed Im allowed to deal with your point that Reid shouldnt criticise SFIRA without being accused of going off-topic? If Reid shouldnt criticise, and SFIRA ignores everyone else, that adds up to 0 criticism. Which is where the above is coming from.

With Respect I've indicated very good reason for Fr Reid being carefull to keep himself in a position to hold court with Republicans and be able to persuade them to go on the current road.
As for 0 criticism,As you know pope John Paul wasnt listened to by the IRA and he was the head of the religion they supposedly used as the reason for their campaign.So like you are flogging a dead horse with that one.
It would be far more logical to recognise that the multi faceted approach of persuasion(Fr Reids private role) and law enforcement( eg the Garda raids on houses in Cork and the investigations in Manchester ) is getting us slowly but surely to where we want to be, rather than be gung ho and allow mad men to return to violence.

Again, see above. You claimed that Reids cheerleading was bringing results - do I simply not challenge that if I do not want to be accused of going off topic?

wheres this off topic scream coming from? I never mentioned anything about something being off topic-I merely hinted at you being impervious to there being any progress at all.It's as if you think we are back in the 80's with a few murders every week or couple of days.
As for "cheerleading" thats a loaded statement indicative of not looking at a thing objectively and just being interested in one side of the coin to be honest.

And Reids approach has, as you noted yourself, brought about a wonderful situation where a sizable proportion of the electorate vote for punishment beatings. Yes, Reids style brings progress. Progress to where though? Not to a place where punishment beatings are eliminated.

You want perfection,I recognise that-I do too but not at a price of undoing the progress so far.If people are not yet ready to reject punishment beatings, thats regretable, but They will eventually.It's part and parcel of a fcuked up society to be honest but one thats undergoing repair.
They will eventually.
Nothing about that makes them more acceptable or cheerleads them though.

Pompey Magnus

Out of interest was this level of indignation at Fr. Reid's comments any way comparable to when people like Michael McDowell (an elected politician) and Eoghan Harris compared Sinn Fein to the Nazis or does it only work one way?
Have either of them apologised for their comments?

I don't really see the difference to be honest.

Blackjack

Sand wrote:

He got into an argument with William Frazer, who lost his father, two uncles and two cousins who were all murdered by the South Armagh IRA. William Frazer now capaigns for FAIR, which represents victims of the IRA in South Armagh. I think its clear from the website, and indeed his argument with Reid, that William Frazer is deeply angered by the murders of his family - which is to be expected. Reid was seemingly rattled by the accusations Frazer threw at him, asking why Protestants should believe a Redemptionist priest from Clonard monastary where "weapons were fired and where priests at funerals had spoken of IRA heroes".

To be honest, it would seem that Willie Frazer is guilty of exactly the type of anti-Nationalist rhetoric which has created the comparison to Nazi's in the first place. One look at his website will certainly clear up any confusion surrounding that.

It seems all well and good to remind the world continually of the misdeeds of the Provos, however to even attempt to question the misdeeds of the Loyalists/Unionists brings about a passionate "but look what they did to us" response. As someone said earlier, some people just can't wait to take offence.

Until Northern Ireland gets over Historical events and BOTH communities start to respect each others cultures they'll never get on. Whining about is either North or South of the Border (or from anywhere else for that matter) is not going to make shag all difference.

A Dub in Glasgo

Depeche_Mode wrote:

Out of interest was this level of indignation at Fr. Reid's comments any way comparable to when people like Michael McDowell (an elected politician) and Eoghan Harris compared Sinn Fein to the Nazis or does it only work one way?
Have either of them apologised for their comments?

I don't really see the difference to be honest.

Nah, all the people who like to be offended are only offended when it suits

Pompey Magnus

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Nah, all the people who like to be offended are only offended when it suits

Yeah I though so. I think what annoys me most about this is that the guy has done so much to bring peace to Ireland, he was the one who initiated the talks between Adams and Hume which was the beginning of the end of the need for militant republicanism and fittingly was there at its end. The guy has done so much good work yet one un-PC comment and all of a sudden he is the worst in the world and the knives are out.

A Dub in Glasgo

Because some people can never pass up an opportunity to stick the knife in and twist it just to prove to the world how interested they are in peace

Sand

I've already stated why I think Fr Reid would not want to be put in a position of publically criticising Republicans.

Yes, and I think its clear he went much farther than simply protecting his friendship with whatever Provo figures he has the ear of....Gerry Adams perhaps. While I feel he should be criticising SFIRA if only because no one else can, I can accept he might not want to. Fair enough, he should then restrain himself from attacking those who argue punishment beatings are unjustifiable. We can go round this roundabout as many times as you like, it comes down to the same thing.

By not doing so and beavering away in the background he is getting and has got results.

Sizeable electoral support for punishment beating was one result you mentioned alright.

It is a secret ballot, theres no intimidation in the booths.

Damage is already done when opinion shapers tell the public that punishment beating isnt such a big deal. Tell people that sort stuff long enough and theyll believe it.

Did he say they were right? I asked you that already and you havent shown me where he has said they were right.

Yes I did, he said there was no alternative. That is practically word for word endorsement of SFIRAs position that there is no acceptable police force.

It's an evolution Sand not a revolution.If those beatings and associated criminality were such an issue, people wouldnt be voting for SF in the North.

And again Reid and Co are telling them its not an issue. Blair is telling them its not an issue when he invites SFIRA to Chequers. Ahern is telling them its not an issue when he sings the praises of SFIRA. The Irish-American lobbies tell them its not a big deal when they arrange cosy publicity with Administration figures. Are you surprised that people think its not an issue?

I'd ask you not to misrepresent that position of mine as a condoning of punishment beatings when clearly it is not.

Well while Im happy to misrepresent people as the next person, what I accused you of and what you took so much exception to is here...

And its just laughable that youre now justifying the means (cheerleading SFIRA) with the predictable end ( guys who commit punishment beatings polling 10% support).

As above I said you were using the SFIRA support to justify Reids cheerleading SFIRA approach. Not punishment beatings themselves. Is that such a gross misrepresentation of what you said?

You seem impervious to the progress made in the last 15 years as if to say we are still in the rut of several murders a week commonplace in the 80's.

Not impervious, but is the price of turning those murders from several a week to several a year worth paying when it is democratic principles like all parties adhering to the law? Northern Ireland is already a deepl ill society, is telling them constantly that violence and politics are compatible if regrettable the way to go? And those several murders a year, if theyre carried out by party workers of the ruling administration, even in a "non-official" capacity will you be willing to look the other way whilst the matter becomes regrettably hushed up for the greater good?

AFAIR, one of the McCartneys said after SFIRAs declaration in the summer that the real test was for SFIRA to do nothing (seriously anyway) illegal, forever. How many bank robberies will be carried out by dissidents and renegades who arent dissident or renegade enough to be informed on to the PSNI - unacceptable as they are to this faction of the ruling administration?

You also seem impervious to what I've said regarding the best way to negotiate with people who are on a road you dont agree with and put them on the road that you do agree with.

Which the peace proccess hasnt done - it has simply decided to forget about certain unimportant things we feel we can sacrifice so we can get the murders down from a few a week to a few a year.

wheres this off topic scream coming from? I never mentioned anything about something being off topic

See below...

Eh wheres this coming from? I'm only talking about Fr Reids role.
How are you extending that to every and anyone else?

Thats another Rant Sand and has nothing whatsoever to do with Fr Reid.

You want perfection,I recognise that-I do too but not at a price of undoing the progress so far.

Some progress if its undone by Reid not acting as the unofficial SFIRA press officer.

I don't really see the difference to be honest.

SFIRA arent a broad social/political/ethnic community like protestant unionists whom Reid hurled his insult at.

SFIRA are ultra violent nationalist socialists with a paramilitary wing who hold themselves above the law and possessed an apparently recently decomissioned armoury. I dont know where people get the Nazi vibe from.

It seems all well and good to remind the world continually of the misdeeds of the Provos, however to even attempt to question the misdeeds of the Loyalists/Unionists brings about a passionate "but look what they did to us" response. As someone said earlier, some people just can't wait to take offence.

If the likes of Reid can come on and say Catholics were treated like Jews, that Unionists are Nazis, that SFIRA is whiter than white in its campaign and never attacked the unionist community, and only fought because they were forced to then its not Loyalists/Unionists who need the history lesson/reality check though is it? Especially when posters come on here after and say "Yeah, hes right!"

The guy has done so much good work yet one un-PC comment and all of a sudden he is the worst in the world and the knives are out.

Not one, several.

Blackjack

Sand wrote:

If the likes of Reid can come on and say Catholics were treated like Jews, that Unionists are Nazis, that SFIRA is whiter than white in its campaign and never attacked the unionist community, and only fought because they were forced to then its not Loyalists/Unionists who need the history lesson/reality check though is it? Especially when posters come on here after and say "Yeah, hes right!"

Perhaps you could provide a link to where Reid has said that "SFIRA" are whiter than white, then maybe what you say will have some credibility. However, by associating him with others because it suits you, does not lend any credence to your assumptions.

Links please, if you will (credible ones, not something from the extremist side, if you don't mind).

Sand

Perhaps you could provide a link to where Reid has said that "SFIRA" are whiter than white, then maybe what you say will have some credibility.

Links please, if you will (credible ones, not something from the extremist side, if you don't mind).

Ooooh well Id just love to have credibility with someone I dont even know!And someone who hasnt even bothered to watch the interview or read a transcript. And a wonderful example of debating style, go through a post thats making a lenthy case and pick on one particular phrase or point and try to disprove it and by extension the entire post. Wonderful, wonderful. Only you could have picked a better comment to try and exploit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/heartsandminds/index.shtml

I know, I know, BBC - Brits, probably some bloody extremist Special Branch Securocrat Plant!!!

Theres a real media file showing the interview. Its about 10-15% way through the program, within 5 minutes of the start, after they initially discuss why people should believe Reid. The interviewer ask Reid directly

"So you believe that the IRA is whiter than white when it comes to criminality? (?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!)"
And Reid replies
"Yes"

Oh joy is me, instant credibility with someone I dont know....No wait, I predict straw grasping and back tracking.

However, by associating him with others because it suits you, does not lend any credence to your assumptions.

BTW another interesting "slip" by Reid is when the interviewer asks if Reid feels its not the responsibility of those who control an organisation to stop members of that organisation from committing crime and Reid agrees of course "we'll stop them, we'll stop them". He associates himself, requires next to no work by me.

cal29

Sand wrote:

Ooooh well Id just love to have credibility with someone I dont even know!And someone who hasnt even bothered to watch the interview or read a transcript. And a wonderful example of debating style, go through a post thats making a lenthy case and pick on one particular phrase or point and try to disprove it and by extension the entire post. Wonderful, wonderful. Only you could have picked a better comment to try and exploit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/heartsandminds/index.shtml

I know, I know, BBC - Brits, probably some bloody extremist Special Branch Securocrat Plant!!!

Theres a real media file showing the interview. Its about 10-15% way through the program, within 5 minutes of the start, after they initially discuss why people should believe Reid. The interviewer ask Reid directly

"So you believe that the IRA is whiter than white when it comes to criminality? (?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!)"
And Reid replies
"Yes"

Oh joy is me, instant credibility with someone I dont know....No wait, I predict straw grasping and back tracking.



BTW another interesting "slip" by Reid is when the interviewer asks if Reid feels its not the responsibility of those who control an organisation to stop members of that organisation from committing crime and Reid agrees of course "we'll stop them, we'll stop them". He associates himself, requires next to no work by me.

The question is does he believe the IRA is whiter than white when it comes to criminality
Now here is the bit that you have to wrap your head around

You would view the whole IRA campaign as criminal and any actions such as fundraising ie bank robberies smuggling etc
However other people would see such activities as part of an armed campaign in which the participants in such robberies etc were not involved to make personal gain but to fund their military campaign and as such their actions are not criminal as a criminal is involved in illegal activity for personal enrichment

That is how people can rationalise statements about the IRA not being involved in criminality despite the fact that we all know that the IRA was involved in robberies smuggling etc etc

I dont believe for one minute that Fr Reid is unaware of the IRAs activities however as he knows on a personal level people who have been in charge of the IRA and who would have participated in such activities he knows that these people have not enriched themselves from such activities despite the fact that it would have been very easy for them to do so on that basis he can say the IRA is whiter than white when it comes to criminality


BTW Fr Reid is completely opposed to armed struggle to the extent that he believes that 1916 was wrong which would seperate him from republicans even in FF

And despite what Fr Reid said and wether you or I think it was right or wrong how does any of this undermine the decommissioning work he was not the only witness
T

Pompey Magnus

Sand wrote:

SFIRA arent a broad social/political/ethnic community like protestant unionists whom Reid hurled his insult at.

But a broad social/political/ethnic community is just what Nazism was and you have just said that SF isn't that but Unionism is! I don't see how you can then use that definition to allow a description of SF as Nazi but reject a similar description of Unionism. Seems like you got things backwards.

jank

Ok things are getting circular here, yes it is, not it isnt etc etc ad nauseum.

Well what did you expect with an opinion peice that Paisly himself would be proud of. You should get a job with the DUP PR/Media department.
Only like minded people need apply..just like the 60's eh when catolics were discriminated against.

Lets have a comparison.

If you think about it B Specials(An exclusively Prodestant organisation) burning catholics out of their home in the 60's e.g. Bombay street and like wise.

1938 kristallnacht, Storm troopers(An exclusively non-jewish German organisation) burning and ransacking jewish businesses and homes.

Erie isnt it?

Now everybody knows that the Unionists did'nt round up Cathoilcs for the sheer purpose of mass extermination in concentration camps(which is strangely a British invention!), but the treatment of unionits towards catholics had resembelances of 1930's Germany.

You can only push a man so far and sooner or later they will snap.
History has always shown that.

Nobody can excuse the actions of the PIRA but likewise the same applies to Unionists, not just in the 60's but for decades before that.

Moral of all this....Nothing comes out of a vacuum


PS interestingly Sand you dont have any opinion on the "Poor Ian Paisly Jnr " thread

Sand

Sand wrote:

Yes, and I think its clear he went much farther than simply protecting his friendship with whatever Provo figures he has the ear of....Gerry Adams perhaps. While I feel he should be criticising SFIRA if only because no one else can, I can accept he might not want to. Fair enough, he should then restrain himself from attacking those who argue punishment beatings are unjustifiable. We can go round this roundabout as many times as you like, it comes down to the same thing.

But that only holds if his purpose in attacking them is only because they oppose punishment beatings.
I can safely say it has nothing to do with that.

Sizeable electoral support for punishment beating was one result you mentioned alright.

As I see it,thats an unrecognition of a sizeable mandate made by people who believe that the road gone down while not perfect is the best available.

Damage is already done when opinion shapers tell the public that punishment beating isnt such a big deal. Tell people that sort stuff long enough and theyll believe it.

Nonsense.Credit people with some inteligence.It's plain that they have it and are using it to encourage the story so far in recognition of the fact that theres some way to go yet.

Yes I did, he said there was no alternative. That is practically word for word endorsement of SFIRAs position that there is no acceptable police force.

No you didnt answer my question at all and in fact Sand I'm surprised that you are claiming you did, given how plain it is to see that you didn't.
Fr Reid was simply stating fact.Theres an awfull lot of people who donn't want to accept the PSNI yet especially in areas that these beatings are still more prevalent.Spinning that as him saying it is right, is just that-Spin.

And again Reid and Co are telling them its not an issue. Blair is telling them its not an issue when he invites SFIRA to Chequers. Ahern is telling them its not an issue when he sings the praises of SFIRA. The Irish-American lobbies tell them its not a big deal when they arrange cosy publicity with Administration figures. Are you surprised that people think its not an issue?

I understand all those people are constantly saying its an issue.You're misinterpreting their actions.
I'll interpret them differently for you if you like, but I suspect you already are aware of this different interpretation...
Those guys(Blair etc) know the day you stop talking is the day you start going backwards.

As above I said you were using the SFIRA support to justify Reids cheerleading SFIRA approach. Not punishment beatings themselves. Is that such a gross misrepresentation of what you said?

It's a complete and mischievous misrepresentation.
But I'm not worried as I'm entirely satisfied that what I've said and am saying could not be plainer and its certainly not what you say I'm saying.
What you are doing is spinning my words and worse adding to them.

Not impervious, but is the price of turning those murders from several a week to several a year worth paying when it is democratic principles like all parties adhering to the law?

So you accept that theres been progress then? I can accept that you think the price is too high for this.But I'll disagree in the knowledge that (a) In the eventual complete absense (though later for some in the North than us in the South) of a disagreement/conflict etc etc etc, most people will as they do in the south already see whatever party they vote for (including SF) as being associated with their own(the voters) values.I dont share the same pesimism as yourself that criminality will be a great attraction. and (b) The law is catching up with the law breakers and I've no doubt it will continue to do so.

Northern Ireland is already a deepl ill society, is telling them constantly that violence and politics are compatible if regrettable the way to go?

Nobody is saying that.
What most people are saying is that theres a transition to be done in what you term as an ill society.

And those several murders a year, if theyre carried out by party workers of the ruling administration, even in a "non-official" capacity will you be willing to look the other way whilst the matter becomes regrettably hushed up for the greater good?

No

AFAIR, one of the McCartneys said after SFIRAs declaration in the summer that the real test was for SFIRA to do nothing (seriously anyway) illegal, forever. How many bank robberies will be carried out by dissidents and renegades who arent dissident or renegade enough to be informed on to the PSNI - unacceptable as they are to this faction of the ruling administration?

I've already stated that thats what the law is there for.
Indeed thats something you should credit most of the electorate to make their mind up on.
My position on it I shouldnt have to state here yet again...
However for the record,I'll restate this part, the likes of FR Reid and others closely associated with the background work that has brought us to the advanced stage we are now on the road that we are on, are performing a role.
Being labled as associates and apoligists of criminals is not a part of that role.
You may be so zealously opposed to the process that brought us to this point and you are entitled to be.
But I have my doubts ias to whether the we'll bin it immediately because some arent playing ball yet approach would be best practice.

Which the peace proccess hasnt done - it has simply decided to forget about certain unimportant things we feel we can sacrifice so we can get the murders down from a few a week to a few a year.

Like I said I don't agree that it has decided to forget these things.It's just that it is an evolution, not a revolution.

Some progress if its undone by Reid not acting as the unofficial SFIRA press officer.

Similar hyperbole as saying I'm cheerleading the IRA.

SFIRA arent a broad social/political/ethnic community like protestant unionists whom Reid hurled his insult at.

He apologised.

SFIRA are ultra violent nationalist socialists with a paramilitary wing who hold themselves above the law and possessed an apparently recently decomissioned armoury. I dont know where people get the Nazi vibe from.

I'm only here to discuss Fr Reid's position.I'm on record as you should know as saying I'm not a SF voter for several policy and other associated issues.

If the likes of Reid can come on and say Catholics were treated like Jews, that Unionists are Nazis, that SFIRA is whiter than white in its campaign and never attacked the unionist community, and only fought because they were forced to then its not Loyalists/Unionists who need the history lesson/reality check though is it? Especially when posters come on here after and say "Yeah, hes right!"

I don't doubt that there are faults on all sides.I'm not one for labling all people in any fashion,I prefer to look at cases and decide on the idividuals/groups of individuals.

sceptre

jank wrote:

You should get a job with the DUP PR/Media department.

I'll say this only once jank: if you get personal with other posters you'll be posting outside the forum. If I choose to check whether I've already cautioned you for this and find that it's so you may find yourself in that situation anyway. Post like a big adult rather than doing what you're doing above, it casts a shadow of childishness on anything else you choose to post.

Blackjack

Sand wrote:

Ooooh well Id just love to have credibility with someone I dont even know!And someone who hasnt even bothered to watch the interview or read a transcript. And a wonderful example of debating style, go through a post thats making a lenthy case and pick on one particular phrase or point and try to disprove it and by extension the entire post. Wonderful, wonderful. Only you could have picked a better comment to try and exploit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/heartsandminds/index.shtml

I know, I know, BBC - Brits, probably some bloody extremist Special Branch Securocrat Plant!!!

Theres a real media file showing the interview. Its about 10-15% way through the program, within 5 minutes of the start, after they initially discuss why people should believe Reid. The interviewer ask Reid directly

"So you believe that the IRA is whiter than white when it comes to criminality? (?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!)"
And Reid replies
"Yes"

Oh joy is me, instant credibility with someone I dont know....No wait, I predict straw grasping and back tracking.



BTW another interesting "slip" by Reid is when the interviewer asks if Reid feels its not the responsibility of those who control an organisation to stop members of that organisation from committing crime and Reid agrees of course "we'll stop them, we'll stop them". He associates himself, requires next to no work by me.

Blah blah blah - your link brings me to the "Hearts and Minds" page of BBC NI.
Where is the link where Reid says the IRA are whiter than white?.