mynamejeff wrote: » how do you know she is telling the truth ? after all …..
joeguevara wrote: » I think it was a slip of the tongue from her. The Army Council does exist.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » Does anyone know who replaced Bobby’Nutting Squad’ Storey on it?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Can anyone point to the requirement that the IRA 'cease' to exist? The IRA were required to cease military operations and to decomission. According to the monitoring commission set up by both governments this requirement has been met. The IRA were exhorted and encouraged to get involved in exclusively democratic means..a requirement that has also been met. Unless both governments through their appointed monitoring agency is lying to us?
Deleted User wrote: » And yet,grave human rights abuses are going on in magabery and irish government turns a blind eye to it,but can find the resources and time to fly that halawa chap home from egyet?? Same as how everyone claims,the likes of magdalene laundries etc wouldnt occur nowadays,while society turns a blind eye to whats going on in direct provision centres.... just because theres no votes to be got,deosnt mean its not worth talking out for them......shinners used be great to fight the corner for unemployed etc,who dont vote,but they leave those in direct provision to rot and its pure and utterly fcuking wrong
joeguevara wrote: » It is denoted as an illegal and terrorist organisation. It is not allowed to operate. Are you saying Francie, that they do not need to cease to exist, which implies that you are saying that they exist. Very similar to MLM saying '"No. I mean I've no contact or relationship with the IRA" At least you agree that they exist, albeit that you are implying that there is nothing wrong with them existing.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I cannot and never have proceeded on the basis of allegation and rumour. I can only go by what the Monitoring bodies say. I don't know if the IRA exist or not. Nor do I care, once they have fulfilled their obligations to the GFA. Their political opinion or contributions to the democratic process offers no threat to me as the political opinions of all other democrats don't. I am willing to, as I stated when accepting and voting for the GFA, to include to include the views all democrats, regardless of my own political views. I do reserve the right to disagree.
Hqrry113 wrote: » Well the militarily does not exist that is without doubt. What do you mean when you say "exist" do you mean do some former members of the IRA still meet and discuss possible peaceful ways to promote the likelihood of a United Ireland then yes you're right they probably do still "exist".
joeguevara wrote: » Monitoring bodies say that they exist. So as you say, you must go by that. If they exist, which you say that you must go by, they have not fulfilled their obligations to the GFA in disbanding.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where was the requirement that they 'disband' is what I asked for. When you are done, why are the 2 governments not taking action under the terms of this 'requirement'?
joeguevara wrote: » What more do you want?
joeguevara wrote: » Within 10 minutes you have gone from saying that someone is a fool for saying they could exist to admitting that they still exist to discuss peaceful ways of promoting a likelihood of a United Ireland. Jaysus, I have never seen such progress in this discussion. Now, an army paramilitary council, still meets....to discuss peace.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The requirement that they 'disband' under the GFA. Whenever you are ready. As I understood it, there was a requirement that they cease military operations and decommission.
Hqrry113 wrote: » I was trying to understand what your definition of exist is, If because some former members of the IRA still meet up from time to time (not including former IRA members who are currently in SF)means the IRA "still exist" then yes I agree but the IRA does not exist in any militarily or organized structure.
joeguevara wrote: » you specifically requested a requirement of where it says that they cannot disband. I showed you that legislation. Now youre only interested in specific reference in the GFA. The GFA requires all parties to work constructively and openly with the Independent Commission. When the Independent commission states that they have reason to believe that there is clear evidence of an Army COuncil, which is denied by Sinn Fein, then it is a breach of the GFA. No question about it. And people who admit that an army council still exists, without weapons to discuss peace, is talking through their ar5e.
Deleted User wrote: » Scrath a liberial,a facist bleeds Its wrong whats going on there irregardless of they being in for murder or no tv licence Noone said they did,so.why your ranting is beyond me.......just what kind of ireland yous want,and i know direct provision is wrong and used to line pockets of unscruptulous scum (though i believe this and similar behaviour is now refered to as senor hurling and therefore deemed ok)
Hqrry113 wrote: » Is it really an "army" council anymore if there is no army? Or is it just a group of people discussing a United Ireland?
FrancieBrady wrote: » So, if this 'Army Council' exists, what have the governments, who have very clear commitments in the GFA done? You cannot have it every which way here. My belief is that there is no longer an 'army' and a name is being applied that has no relevance or actual meaning.It is clear to me that the IRA have gotten involved in democratic politics.
mynamejeff wrote: » just a social club now is it ?
joeguevara wrote: » The Army council control the actions of Sinn Fein in other words!
FrancieBrady wrote: » Or they contribute to the party just like any other member does? Depends on your paranoia levels I suppose.
joeguevara wrote: » Not paranoid. Just never heard anyone admit openly that the army council still meet up regularly and now are involved (an army council) in democratic politics, as has been posted over the last 30 minutes. It really is a step forward.
