N.I - who's to blame 4 crisis

Mighty_Mouse

I cant understand why sinn fein are being blamed for the current mess. Can people not see that even if the IRA came out in the morning and said we no longer exists or what ever specific words that the Unionists want ............ it would never be enough.

The next time a renegade IRA member was caught for a crime anything , from sniffing glue to car theft , the peace process would be called into question with the unionists claiming IRA activity.

At the moment the IRA have relitive control over they're members and hence the current long-lasting cease fire.

As far as i can determine there are no current IRA activities prohibiting unionists practiceing politics. Its plainly obvious that the unionists have adopted a policy of hinderence to prevent any further progress by nationalists.

The simple fact of the matter is that the unionists have failed to honour the good friday agreement in full.

Biffa Bacon

100% the UUP's fault. They signed up to the Good Friday Agreement so they should stick to it.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Mighty_Mouse

In what way have sinn fein not kept there side of the agreement?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Mighty_Mouse

They continue to use their private army as a criminal gang.

By this do you mean Sinn Fein are using a criminal gang.

So why do Sinn Fein need their own criminal gang? What do Sinn Fein use them for?

On decommissioning. I didn't think anybody, even unionists, took this seriously. Whats the point in decommissioning. I always believed that the significance of decommissioning was to show that the IRA were willing to give up their arms by decommissioning a significant amount of arms. Which they have done.
Decommissioning can only ever by a gesture cause who can tell when full decommissioning has occurred.

What would be an accurate measure of decommissioning.? maby if we had independant inspectors that verify that weapons have been decommissioned? No..................that would't work. Thats me i'm fresh out of ideas

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by daveirl
How can it possibly be 100% the UUPs fault. Sinn Féin/IRA haven't kept up their end of the deal either.

Sinn Féin have kept their side of the deal. They are not the IRA. There is no reason for them to be excluded from government under the terms of the GFA.

The blame, is always going to be somewhere in the middle.
There are too many vested interests on both sides of the argument.

Both sides are looking for victory, pure and simple, thus bringing us regularly after a few breakthroughs up to a brick wall.
I don't see the IRA fully decommissioning, in a way that would look like surrender.
Ok their victims and hardline unionists understandably want that, but,rather they should be continuing to look for the comprimise.
Because, one thing is certain, the further down this road all parties go, the more difficult, it is for the IRA to go back to terrorism.
mm

Mighty_Mouse

Why do they need the IRA to be running around the place breaking the law both North and South of the border. Why do they need them to smuggle guns, petrol and much much more

originally posted by Dave eirl


The don't need them thats why they don't have them!
To say Sinn Fein has a private army or has a criminal gang working for them is a bit ridiculous. Do you not think?


Directly linking the IRA with Sinn Fein always seems to me to be a 'closed minded', stubbornly anti-republican stance to me. (I still welcome everyones opinions)

I would argue that Sinn Fein doesn't have the IRA.
What they have managed to do, on the other hand, is convince members of their own community that voilence is not the way froward. They have brought a whole segment of the republican community from an armed struggle to a political one. Actually I would go as far as to say that Sinn Fein are the only party in the north engaging in pro-active politics. (as opposed to reactive)



I believe that whatever activities the IRA are still engaged in are minimal if any, and more often than not; completely fabricated.

Coming from a thirty year war, it would be extremly difficult to keep all hardcore elements in line. I do believe that in this respect, the IRA have done well to hold the vast majority of its members under cotrol, which has to be seen as a good sighn.

But I definitely don't agree that any of theses activities are a threat to the peace process.


originally posted by man

Because, one thing is certain, the further down this road all parties go, the more difficult, it is for the IRA to go back to terrorism

Dave would you not see this as a more valid option that getting hung up on decommissioning?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Pompey Magnus

Nelson Mandela was commander in chief of the MK, the military wing (or "terrorist" wing- whichever suits you) of the ANC, after its founding in 1961 which carried out bombings in South Africa. Out of interest are Mandela and the ANC (who continue to hold strong ties with Sinn Fein ) terrorists?

Éomer of Rohan

As we have discussed at great length in other threads, terrorist is a subjective term and in my opinion should be eliminated from vocabulary - especially American and Irish vocabularies. A terrorist depends on who is the person calling that person a terrorist.

Anyway, Back OT, I do not think it is fair to ascribe problems to one political party and to vindicate others. People promulgate sectarian policies and politics simply by voting for Sinn Fein, SDLP, UUP, DUP, UKUP, PUP, 32 Counties et al. Even the Alliance Party is tainted by their willing collaboration in maintenance of Sinn Fein at the talking table in defiance of the GFA - Sinn Fein have not decomissioned (and while I don't think it is practicable for them to decomission at this point in time, the fact remains, thay have not done so).

Victor

How about stopping blaming people and getting on with the job?

Éomer of Rohan

Blaming is not the issue; history and therefore precedent are the issues and these are important.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Mighty_Mouse

response to dave erl

i still maintain that Sinn Fein don't have the IRA.

The fact of the matter is that the IRA and Sinn Fein spring from the same communities and thats where the link arises. Sinn Fein are not the IRA, they don't own them, direct them and certainly don't use them for smuggling petrol!!!

As for your second point, I dont agree with your definition of republicanism :

criminals and thugs who latch onto a politcal idea

i thinkk your stretching it a bit trying to strengthen your argument which in turn only serves to weaken the points you make.

to sum up i disagree with most things you say!!!!;)

Mighty_Mouse

Victor : How about stopping blaming people and getting on with the job?

If this is your view do you agree with sanctions?

Pompey Magnus

Originally posted by daveirl

Which do you think got the results in South Africa, the worldwide political pressure or terrorist attacks?

ah yes, worldwide political pressure, like every UN nation but Sth Africa condemning the Sharpeville massacre in 1960 and in the same period South Africa increased exports to Europe by 50%, Nth America by 65% and Asia by 300%. With pressure put on the apartheid government like this I'm amazed it lasted as long as it did! The Sth African government were not going to listen to peaceful protests, they hadn't for decades before and showed no signs of reforming and Mandela and his MK FREEDOM FIGHTERS , like the IRA leadership in the North, realised a bombing campaign would get the governments attention which it unquestionably did.

Pompey Magnus

Originally posted by daveirl
I am anti criminals and thugs who latch onto a politcal idea. What's wrong with that?

what kind of criminal or thug would willingly die in prison like Bobby Sands or the other hunger strikers who would rather starve himself than to betray those who died for this country in accepting his actions as being criminal. Trust me, any criminals or thugs would be more than happy to wear a prison uniform and get their dinners and TV ,so to label men like Sands as a criminal or a thug is totally narrow minded. but saying that I am sure that there were and are members of the IRA who were indeed b*****ds and had no ideals and used the movement for their own gains, but these very much the exception rather than the rule

bonkey

Originally posted by spandauballet
to label men like Sands as a criminal or a thug is totally narrow minded.

Whatever about calling him a thug, he broke the laws of the legally recognised government of the day.

He was prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced.

That makes him - by definition - a criminal. There is nothing narrow-minded about it - the reason you break a law does not mitigate the fact that you broke the law.

You can argue all you like about why he was a criminal, or whether or not he was morally right to have performed criminal acts, but it still wont change the reality that he was a criminal - he comitted crimes.

jc

Pompey Magnus

Originally posted by bonkey
He was prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced.

That makes him - by definition - a criminal.

ok then, following that logic then, the following are criminals for breaking the law of their recognised governments...
Ghadi, Mandela, Martin Luther King, Padraig Pearse and his 1916 comrades (not to mention 1798 etc), George Washington etc etc etc.
also the British were not recognised as the official government of the north if you want to take into account the old articles 2 and 3 of our constitution.




a wee discussion board to release all those anti Sinn Fein feelings

Mighty_Mouse

origionally posted by dave eirl I am anti criminals and thugs who latch onto a politcal idea

I agree with spandauballet so theres no need to rehash what he said.

bonkey

Originally posted by spandauballet
ok then, following that logic then, the following are criminals for breaking the law of their recognised governments...
Ghadi, Mandela, Martin Luther King, Padraig Pearse and his 1916 comrades (not to mention 1798 etc), George Washington etc etc etc.

That is correct. They were, or are, criminals.

Dont confuse me with the person who insisted they are "anti criminals and thugs who latch onto political ideals".

also the British were not recognised as the official government of the north if you want to take into account the old articles 2 and 3 of our constitution.

Actually, article 3 explicitly recognised that the authority of the Irish government only covered the 26 counties, and that it would remain so until the unification of ireland could be brought about "only by peaceful means with the consent of a
majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both
jurisdictions in the island"

Article 2 simply extended the right of Irish citizenship to anyone born on the Island.

This myth that Article 3 in any way gave legitimacy to the terrroist and/or criminal activities of the IRA in the North of Ireland is astounding in its persistency, and in how many people seem to believe it.

jc

Biffa Bacon

All the crisis in the North comes down to is that the UUP is trying to use politics to solve a policing issue, i.e. criminal activity by paramilitaries. The police should be used to solve the policing issue, i.e. security crackdown.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
This myth that Article 3 in any way gave legitimacy to the terrroist and/or criminal activities of the IRA in the North of Ireland is astounding in its persistency, and in how many people seem to believe it.

Eh, but the IRA doesn't recognise the authority of the Freestate, does it?

Éomer of Rohan

All the crisis in the North comes down to is that the UUP is trying to use politics to solve a policing issue, i.e. criminal activity by paramilitaries. The police should be used to solve the policing issue, i.e. security crackdown.

LOL - please do not comment if you have no idea what you are talking about. The last 'security crackdown' resulted in the Catholic population of West Belfast turning vehemently anti-British and IRA membership shot up. The drugs and so on are a policing issue but the point is obvious that this cannot be tackled efficiently and effectively until these drug dealers loose their ideological basis within each community (same applies to common criminals such as IRA or UVF car thieves etc) - once the Catholic population have faith in the RUC (no small matter since they have been betrayed time and again by the police - I should know, my father is an officer thereof) then all the regularities of policing will return. Decommissioning and the policing board are obviously a big step in this. Also, Biffa, please explain how you attribute this to the UUP 'trying to use politics to solve a policing issue' because the UUP have no control over the police and certainly nor should they.

Mighty_Mouse

On the policing issue - republican commentators have commented that if there was significant movement here ie. restricting the power of the commissioner, more movements on patten etc

It could lead to another historic move by the IRA. ie a large decommissioning or step towards disbandment.

Policeing and decommissioning are tied.

Not sure if we'll see it in time for elections though- --- unionists don't fancy Martin as first minister!!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Mighty_Mouse

originally posted by dave eirl
Why is it always the responsiblity of the British government to make concessions first

The hard part about the NI negotiations is reaching an agreement that the parties can sell to their supporters.

I don't really understand you thinking here. There's no first or last really. I suppose Sinn Fein and the British are trying to reach an agreement where the both gain something by both making concessions. ....................... its negotiation !

Next your gonna say : why can't we all just get along and be happy! This is not a bad theory but I'm sure you can appreciate that it can't work within the confines of reality.

originally posted by dave eirl
I've heard all this before

And I you also

Éomer of Rohan

The hard part is to realise that nationality is no longer the question. Living together with a community that you have learned to fear and distrust and with a police force that is still mainly from one community and has been guilty of betrayal in the past is. It is important to recognise that there is no incentive for politicians in Northern Ireland to reach 'consensus' when they and their paramilitary wings (for those groups that have them) profit so much by the irregular situation up here.

Sparks

ok then, following that logic then, the following are criminals for breaking the law of their recognised governments...
Ghadi, Mandela, Martin Luther King, Padraig Pearse and his 1916 comrades (not to mention 1798 etc), George Washington etc etc etc.

That's a rather disingenous argument, mainly because of your choice of people. Ghandi and King were strong proponents of civil disobedience and non-violent protest. I've yet to see the IRA commit to non-violent civil disobedience, yet it was proven to work.

Pearse&co were terrorists, by our modern definition, and there is a fair argument that their actions were not as morally pure as we were taught in school. After all, Parnell damn near achieved what they wanted without causing a war (though how the UDA would have reacted had the act gone through prior to WW1 is a different story); and de Velera managed to go from the Free State to the Republic without needing a second war with the UK.

So frankly, defending the actions of violent men with the argument that violence is required is somewhat flawed. And arguing that their actions are justified by the conviction of their beliefs is insanity - you merely need look at european history for the past sixty years to verify that.

I must confess ignorance on one point - when was the last referendum held on the political status of the six counties in the six counties?

PH01

JesusHChrist, how long is this going to go on?
The IRA\Sinn Fein won't say that the WAR is over and give up the armed struggle.
The Unionists won't share power because they don't trust the republicans never mind what they say or do.

Are these people taking the pìss?! I mean just get on with it - get the job done and stop playing silly-buggers

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The last 'security crackdown' resulted in the Catholic population of West Belfast turning vehemently anti-British and IRA membership shot up.

Then do it right this time. If people are breaking the law there is no other option but to bring the force of the law to bear on them.

Also, Biffa, please explain how you attribute this to the UUP 'trying to use politics to solve a policing issue' because the UUP have no control over the police and certainly nor should they.

The policing issue is the continued lawbreaking by paramilitaries in terms of membership of illegal organisations and possession of illegal armaments. Therefore this issue should be resolved by the police. What the UUP is trying to do is to bring political pressure to bear on the political representatives of these people in order to force them to desist from these illegal activities. This is not how a well-ordered society should work and it is also contrary to the GFA.

Sparks

Biff,

Then do it right this time. If people are breaking the law there is no other option but to bring the force of the law to bear on them.

It's not working in Israel/Palestine, why would it work here?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

crackdown can work

I think the moriarty tribunal is showing how "within the law" the protaganists were. Frankly, if that's what a crackdown requires, I'll take something else please. Down that road lies the Patriot Acts, and the restriction of the FOI Act.... ah. Hmm. I see McAleese just signed the restriction into law today. Bugger.

Cork

I think the IRA weapons are being decommissioned. Some were destroyed and some aer rotting in bunkers.

I think that the Good Friday Agreement is a compromise. Unionists probably want some re-assurance. Why not give it to them & get on with power sharing?

I think that Irish Republicisim does not need to hold on these arms. I think that - comprosise with regard to everybodys various rights is the key up there. There needs to be an accepted police force and the militry pressence needs to be scaled back.


Yet, this is all doable.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

dave,
No, but I'm saying it's a bit rich to assume that they're acting within the law without proof. Which is perhaps the biggest fallout from Moriarty - it's no longer valid to accept a garda's statement as having any more weight than that of anyone else anymore.

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
I've yet to see the IRA commit to non-violent civil disobedience, yet it was proven to work.

However, such behaviour was common in republican and wider nationalist circles, in part supported / directed / enforced by the IRA.

Originally posted by Sparks
Pearse&co were terrorists, by our modern definition, and there is a fair argument that their actions were not as morally pure as we were taught in school.

I'm not sure I would agree he was a terrorist per se - they wore uniforms, had a clear chain of command and sought primarily to engage the British Army. However, I seriously disagree with his desire to cause major casualties, thereby gaining the support of the people (which worked).

Originally posted by Sparks
After all, Parnell damn near achieved what they wanted without causing a war (though how the UDA would have reacted had the act gone through prior to WW1 is a different story)

This is possibly a good example of where violence is permissible, despite repeated attempts, independence could not be gained democratically (because of the House of Lords veto, abolished in 1912) despite a majority wanting it. The dragged out nature of WWI proved a point that the Empire was taking Ireland places it didn't want to be (a lot more Irish were killed in France and Belgium than in Ireland in 1914-1923).

Originally posted by Sparks
and de Velera managed to go from the Free State to the Republic without needing a second war with the UK.

This change was gradual and not violent and possibly had more to do with the abdication debacle in the UK. The gathering storm clouds in Europe were probably also a factor.