Ira To Put Down Arms

[P.K.]

The IRA are nothing but a bunch of murderous thugs.

 

Also the days when the Catholics were deliberatley downtrodden by the Protestants are over. That kind of behaviour is simply no longer tolerated by todays society. Add to that 9-11 and the subsequent end of all North American funding and all of a sudden the "leadership" makes this announcement.

 

I wouldn't trust McGuinness or Adams further than I could throw a steamroller. Wait and see mode.

[Lonan3]

The IRA are nothing but a bunch of murderous thugs.

 

Also the days when the Catholics were deliberatley downtrodden by the Protestants are over. That kind of behaviour is simply no longer tolerated by todays society. Add to that 9-11 and the subsequent end of all North American funding and all of a sudden the "leadership" makes this announcement.

 

I wouldn't trust McGuinness or Adams further than I could throw a steamroller. Wait and see mode.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are 'murderous thugs' on both sides in that unhappy conflict - and neither side has any more reason to be proud of it's record than the other.

The 'days when the Catholics were deliberately downtrodden by the Protestants,' particularly in terms of the jobs that they were offered and their representation in parliament, lasted well into the 1970s and have only gradually eased over the past twenty years or so.

I'm not taking sides because I don't believe there was ever justification for the kind of violence that has damaged that province, but I think that there would have been far less support for it there if one side hadn't been able to point to the very definite injustices that were being inflicted on it while the other was so determined to retain it's traditional advantages.

Wait and see should also, perhaps, be wait and hope - because I'm not certain that either side can really abandon the warlike rhetoric without losing it's core support.

[Gladys]

BBC reported that McGuiness was in NY or Washington when the announcement was made, ostensibly to ensure that funding was not diverted from IRA to the various splinter groups. So is US funding still finding its way to republicans, even after 9/11? Funny, one man's terrorist is another man's champion!

[lectro]

Funny, one man's terrorist is another man's champion!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nelson Mandela? Che Guevara? Yasser Arafat?

 

 

There are 'murderous thugs' on both sides in that unhappy conflict - and neither side has any more reason to be proud of it's record than the other.

 

People forget that the Loyalist paramilitaries were responsible for over 40% of the deaths during the period. And they are still at it but at least it's one faction killing another - when it's last man standing hopefully he'll announce a ceasefire

[Gladys]

Cheers Lectro, they were exactly the people I was thinking of. However, look at Rog's view of Arafat? Possibly the only man that could unlock the middle east problem, but kept holed up until he died!

[ButterflyMaiden]

Cheers Lectro, they were exactly the people I was thinking of.  However, look at Rog's view of Arafat?  Possibly the only man that could unlock the middle east problem, but kept holed up until he died!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Opinions differ on Arafat and his contribution towards creating the Middle East problem.

My understanding is that he was free to leave provided he naver came back.

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

Funny, one man's terrorist is another man's champion!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

]Nelson Mandela? Che Guevara? Yasser Arafat?

 

 

The Irish Republicans had the Vote and the means to change things legally, democratically and politically. They took up arms instead. They are terrorists.

 

The people of Palestine and South African did not have a democratic vote in the running of their countries or lives. They could not change the system legally and democratically. They took up arms to change that. They are freedom fighters.

 

Simple definition.

[Lonan3]

The Irish Republicans had the Vote and the means to change things legally, democratically and politically.  They took up arms instead.  They are terrorists.

 

Simple definition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Rather too simple. The boundaries of the constituencies were deliberately 'loaded' to ensure a disproportionate number of Loyalist representatives. No amount of 'voting' would have changed that.

[Lonan3]

I find this very sad -

 

Guardian, August 3, 2005

 

The Rev Ian Paisley today said uncompromisingly there could be no role for Sinn Féin Northern Ireland's power-sharing administration, ahead of talks with the Northern Ireland secretary, Peter Hain.

Mr Paisley, the Democratic Unionist leader, has kept a relatively low profile since the IRA's historic announcement last week that it would end its terrorist campaign, but today said unionists were "not to be duped".

The DUP, now the largest Northern Ireland party both in the suspended Belfast assembly and at Westminster, are also angered by the rapid moves to demilitarisation, and the disbandment of Royal Irish Regiment battalions.

Ahead of his first talks with Mr Hain since last Thursday's IRA statement, Mr Paisley said: "It will be my business and the business of my colleagues to lay it on the line to both the secretary of state and the prime minister that there can be no place in any future government of Northern Ireland for IRA/Sinn Féin.

"As the representatives of the majority of the Ulster population, we will not be engaged in any negotiations with that aim.

"The aim of the Belfast agreement to put terrorists into government will not take place and if the government, allied with IRA/Sinn Féin and the Dublin government, press forward with such measures, then they will have to face the righteous indignation of the unionist population."

[Brizo]

I dont find this sad at all. They dont trust them and have very good reasons not to.

 

Its true. Everyone has jumped as soon as they said "we are going to stop all criminal activity". This has been going on for years and wont stop just like that. Too much money is to be lost if they do. The IRA and other groups have been making thousands of pounds on drugs and other venues.

[simon]

I find this very sad -

 

Guardian, August 3, 2005

 

The Rev Ian Paisley today said uncompromisingly there could be no role for Sinn Féin Northern Ireland's power-sharing administration, ahead of talks with the Northern Ireland secretary, Peter Hain.

Mr Paisley, the Democratic Unionist leader, has kept a relatively low profile since the IRA's historic announcement last week that it would end its terrorist campaign, but today said unionists were "not to be duped".

The DUP, now the largest Northern Ireland party both in the suspended Belfast assembly and at Westminster, are also angered by the rapid moves to demilitarisation, and the disbandment of Royal Irish Regiment battalions.

Ahead of his first talks with Mr Hain since last Thursday's IRA statement, Mr Paisley said: "It will be my business and the business of my colleagues to lay it on the line to both the secretary of state and the prime minister that there can be no place in any future government of Northern Ireland for IRA/Sinn Féin.

"As the representatives of the majority of the Ulster population, we will not be engaged in any negotiations with that aim.

"The aim of the Belfast agreement to put terrorists into government will not take place and if the government, allied with IRA/Sinn Féin and the Dublin government, press forward with such measures, then they will have to face the righteous indignation of the unionist population."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Rev Doctor Paisley MP MEP MLA also opposed Civil Rights back in the 1960s. Long before the Provos split from the old Offical IRA. Even back to the days when the old Official IRA was dormant and Marxist following the ending of the border campaign of the late 1950s.

 

Paisley basically hates catholicism and Roman Catholicism in particular..

 

The Rev Doctor Paisley also called Pope JP2 the 'antichrist' - in the European Parliament. Link here at http://www.ianpaisley.org/ He's a nutter. And it's odd that anyone can take him seriously.

 

See also his 5 Reasons Why A Catholic Is Not A Christian.

 

When Paisley dies, then there will perhaps be some sort of Glasnost and re evaluation of history in the DUP camp. Many ex Loyalists also see him as part of the problem. Unfortunately he'll probably live to be about 150.

 

EDIT: Wikipedia:

In 1946 he was ordained, in a ceremony at an independent church on the Ravenhill Road in Belfast, by four ministers from four different denominations, none of whom had ecclesiastical authority from their churches to ordain ..... Ian Paisley's academic history has always been something of a sore point for him. He styles himself "Dr Paisley", on the basis of the award of an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina. Bob Jones Jr., was a close personal friend and a co-leader with Ian Paisley in the international Fundamentalist movement. At the time of the award of this degree, Bob Jones University was a segregationist, unaccredited Christian college which banned black students from its campus.

[Gladys]

Sadly, I think IP's son is now becoming very active in this sphere with just the same rhetoric we are used to with Papa! There will not be any Glasnost with the Paisley family. Regardless of his poltitics and which side he has taken, I think history will show him to be one of the most evil, divisive leaders in the late 20th/early 21st centuries. Not to say that the other side are the good guys and have not to bear their share of the blame, but the fact that a putative "man of the cloth" has consistently spouted such vitriol and hate, it is hardly surprising that there has been no easy solution.

 

We have seen many examples of truly good men trying to find a solution but the bigotry in IP's soul is as hard to counter as that in the republican side.

 

Another conundrum!

[simon]

Sadly, I think IP's son is now becoming very active in this sphere with just the same rhetoric we are used to with Papa! There will not be any Glasnost with the Paisley family.

 

Despite sounding, for now, often like the father. Ian Paisley JNR has sometimes given hints of seeming more pragmatic. Pragmatism isn't a Paisley SNR stance -- because, as a fundamentalist, he believes in all or nothing. Pragmatism would be dishonest and (small 'c') catholic from that perspective. Pragmatism (like theology) would involve the possibility of re considering a fundamental 'truth'.

 

I don't believe that Ian Paisley JNR will ever be elected as the DUP leader. Nor do I believe that the DUP has a long term future, in it's current form, as the majority Unionist Party. Because sooner or later it will have to adapt and fight for a middle ground politics. Most people are not all or nothing and anti - pragmatic.

 

Nor do I believe that Unionist parties, in general, will for ever be in the majority in the north. Birth rates and the decline of the SDLP makes that unlikely.

 

If the IRA ceases to exist, as promised, (except as an old boys club) then there is nothing to stop Sinn Fein from taking ever more seats both in Dublin and the north - over the coming years. Next they start to win over moderate Unionists in marginal seats who might be persuaded to vote tactically to oppose the DUP. Or - more likely - unionist voters gravitate back to the Official Unionists - and so split the DUP vote. Which will allow Sinn Fein to win more seats.

 

In the re united Ireland, short term; I suppose that some moderate Unionists would gravitate towards Fine Gael or the Irish Labour Party. Where as the old SDLP vote would be split between Sinn Fein and Fianna Fáil. And some Fianna Fáil people would gravitate towards a respectable Sinn Fein. That already happens.

 

But ultimately all of Ireland will have to change when the failed partition finally ends. And it has already changed so much since the days of De Valera. Will there be any point (there already isn't) for a party system based on old Civil War divisions? Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, at the grass roots, will have to decide whether the Civil War is still an issue.

 

It's hard to know what those parties actually stand for if you take the Irish Civil War out of the debate. Ditto Sinn Fein, partition and the 'Troubles'. In a united Ireland - what would Sinn Fein actually stand for? Wouldn't all of the parties then re align over management and economics?

[VinnieK]

Cheers Lectro, they were exactly the people I was thinking of.   However, look at Rog's view of Arafat?  Possibly the only man that could unlock the middle east problem, but kept holed up until he died!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At risk of diverting the thread from its intended topic, I can't help but express surprise at this description of Arafat!

 

By all accounts he was at least as responsible as the Israeli government over a prolonging of the conflict. Even his own prime ministers expressed exasperation at his obstructionist attitudes to any form of negotiations, and his repeated attempts to hamper their power to negotiate with the Israeli's or help run the Palestinian Authority. If anything there was a collective sigh of relief amongst those engaged on all sides in the peace talks when Arafat passed away, allowing them to get down to business without the old man hindering the process in an attempt to shore up and preserve his own personal power.

[Lonan3]

At risk of diverting the thread from its intended topic, I can't help but express surprise at this description of Arafat!

 

By all accounts he was at least as responsible as the Israeli government over a prolonging of the conflict.  Even his own prime ministers expressed exasperation at his obstructionist attitudes to any form of negotiations, and his repeated attempts to hamper their power to negotiate with the Israeli's or help run the Palestinian Authority.  If anything there was a collective sigh of relief amongst those engaged on all sides in the peace talks when Arafat passed away, allowing them to get down to business without the old man hindering the process in an attempt to shore up and preserve his own personal power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, Vinnie, it's not far off-topic at all - in fact, if you just substitute Ian Paisley's name for Arafat's, it would be more or less spot on!