NationStates Jolt Archive

All hands up who want Ian Paisely to crul up and die?

For thoses of you who don't know the Northern Ireland peace process has yet again been held up. The Rev Ian Paisely demanding a picture by from the IRA proving decommission, now he wants two. Yes the IRA need to disarm and do so fast. But the fact that an evil old man can stall two governments and get away with it really really pisses me off. :sniper:

He was voted in by the population of protestents in N. Ireland. And it is not like he has suddenly become anti agreement. If anything he has gone completely the other way. I find it shocking that he has come so far.

Anyway the IRA haven't offered a photo as far as I am aware. See here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4080697.stm

But I do wish both sides would stop squabling. :fluffle:

Oh I know they haven't. I think the both sides are acting like dickheads. But after all that has been accomplished....I heard something this morning as I wa getting out of the car about Paisely actually wanting to be there to see the decomissioning?

These peeps are smart, they don't want to give up their weapons.

"All hands up who want Ian Paisely to crul up and die?"

Me not! I agree with your thinking of an "evil old man" - and I consider Paisley as a fanatic anti-catholic fundamentalist. But I don't wish him the death, even he should have the chance to find back to the right way.

They're all petty idiots, and the only ones prolonging the division. I think most people recognise that it doesn't really matter whose laws you're governed by - but they'd like to govern themselves, and the only people standing in the way are the idiots in charge.

the problem with him wanting the ira to disarm is that no one is asking/offering for the unionists to give up their guns. double standards. oh and i'm a prod

the problem with him wanting the ira to disarm is that no one is asking/offering for the unionists to give up their guns. double standards. oh and i'm a prod
The IRA are willing to disarm. They're willing to have witnesses there. They just don't want it photographed. Petty? Yes. Are the unionists petty also? Yes. Double standards has got nothing to do with it. It's just ugly, petty squabbling now. They haven't realised that for most people the war was over years ago.

I cannot understand why the emphasis is on the proven decommissioning of the IRA weapons, while no such requirement exists for any of the Protestant/unionist paramilitaries.

The IRA certainly seems to be more in favour of a peace process than do their opponents.

I cannot understand why the emphasis is on the proven decommissioning of the IRA weapons, while no such requirement exists for any of the Protestant/unionist paramilitaries.


He trying to humiliate them, I also think he is enjoying the power he currently has and is unwilling to relinquish it.

'They haven't realised that for most people the war was over years ago.'

yea most of the people in northern ireland have moved on, not all of them but most. the polititians have to realise that its over and that no-one really one. im from NI

well i voted for his party at the last election, so obviously i wouldnt want to him to die...

his party is the biggest party, he told people before the election, and for 30 years before that, this was the sort of thing hed do, and unionists voted for him because theyre sick of years of the UUP giving in to nationalist demands.

Big deal, he wants some photos, the IRA were more than happy to release photos of the guns being used, why not of them being decomissioned?

and its not as if theyre not going to go out and buy some more to replace the ones that are decomissioned

well i voted for his party at the last election, so obviously i wouldnt want to him to die...

his party is the biggest party, he told people before the election, and for 30 years before that, this was the sort of thing hed do, and unionists voted for him because theyre sick of years of the UUP giving in to nationalist demands.

Big deal, he wants some photos, the IRA were more than happy to release photos of the guns being used, why not of them being decomissioned?

and its not as if theyre not going to go out and buy some more to replace the ones that are decomissioned

And should the same rules be applied to the loyalist/Protestant paramilitary organisations?

Or do they not have to decommision and provide evidence of same?

Of course the rules should be applied to them as well

one step at a time

but they have already done more decomissioning than the IRA

Agh, dammit people.

I leave the country for some further education and you're just repeating yourselves over and over! The only difference is, I CAN now hear you from Scotland.

:p

meh...i got stuck here for some further education:(

anyway...i think the main difference is that Sinn Fein ARE the IRA (despite what some might say) where as the DUP do not have a private army

meh...i got stuck here for some further education:(

anyway...i think the main difference is that Sinn Fein ARE the IRA (despite what some might say) where as the DUP do not have a private army
True, but I don't think they've been active for a while have they (I don't know - put me straight on this) - the most recent Republican action has been by the Real IRA, hasn't it?

nope...

last major bomb was Real IRA in Omagh

the Provos are still doing other stuff. in the last four weeks there have been several fire bombs found in Belfast city centre that were hushed up because of the peace talks, all attributed to the provos.

Meh, they're (paramilitaries from all sides) all just ghosts now.

They've moved away from whatever political motives they may have had, devolved into petty crime, intimidation and drugs, and whenever they feel they might be incovenienced, they get their respective parties to wave their names about like they're the Boogieman.

Even if they did decommission, there's nothing to really stop them getting weapons back.

The three things that will put paid to these organisations are religious tolerance, the public's refutal of all they stand for, and better work on behalf of the Intelligence services (who don't do too shabby a job now!) to stop illegal weapons smuggling.

nope...

last major bomb was Real IRA in Omagh

the Provos are still doing other stuff. in the last four weeks there have been several fire bombs found in Belfast city centre that were hushed up because of the peace talks, all attributed to the provos.
Provos?

Of course the rules should be applied to them as well

one step at a time

but they have already done more decomissioning than the IRA

And so the photographic confirmation of such decommissioning is to be found where?

All hands up who want Ian Paisely to crul up and die?

For thoses of you who don't know the Northern Ireland peace process has yet again been held up. The Rev Ian Paisely demanding a picture by from the IRA proving decommission, now he wants two. Yes the IRA need to disarm and do so fast. But the fact that an evil old man can stall two governments and get away with it really really pisses me off. :sniper:

100% agree

Provos?

provos = a branch of the IRA

provos = a branch of the IRA

The "Prrovisional" IRA - now the largest faction, having wrested control from the "Official" (because original) IRA.

The issue isn't really about how many photographs of decommisioning there are. Ian Paisley is now insisting on this because he knows that the IRA will not agree to a photographic documentation of decommisioning, and so he can justify his refusal to work with Sinn Fein in the Northern Ireland assembly. The DUP have explicitely ruled out working with Sinn Fein unless Sinn Fein are prepared to give up their desire for a United Ireland, While such a change in sovereignty is only acceptable if the majority of those in NI wish to see it done (Which at the moment I believe they do not) It is perfectly acceptable, in what is supposed to be a democratic country, for any party to hold such views. Afterall it is up to the electorate who they vote for, and subsequently whose policies they endorse, and it is not acceptable for paisley, or anyone else, to attempt to dictate another parties policies!

Aye weel, they Fenians say they want to be part of the Saorstat, but the 26 Counties don't want the Black North any more than Brits do. Remember every time wee shuggies from Officials and UVF met to sort anything out Brits got rid of em. Now all ye have is paramilitary mafia and Martin "Kneecaps" McGuinness as a respectable Sinn Feiner :)

Tartan Toy Rule lol

Crazy Fundies are still Crazy Fundies, even when they're pretending to be politicians. Viz, G.W. Bush.

It's not a problem that has a solution - you can't put those two parties in a room together and have them work it out because the only reason for their continued existence is in order to disagree with the other. (On these historical issues at least; I know little about the everyday politics of N. Ireland)

And should the same rules be applied to the loyalist/Protestant paramilitary organisations?

Or do they not have to decommision and provide evidence of same?
the difference bing the amount of arms held by each side and the willingness of the IRA in the past to use those arms on civilians. So yes they should both get rid of thier weapons, but I for one want proof that a group of murdering terrorist have actualy done what they said they would, or we could as the US marines to step in and check they do it!

No.

No no no.

Nonononononono.

Just no.

The rev has also said he will not serve in a gov with a terrorist and murderer. Which is a fair point, would the US accept as a senator some one who organised and took part in 9/11 or any other murder of US civilians?
No. So why should people in NI.

Ian is doing a good job. he has really come round. a few years ago he wudnt hav sat down with sinn fein, now however he will, and so wot if he wants a picture!!!! he shud get one! the IRA has been stalling giving up its weapons before if you remember! they did the same thing with David Trimble. :mp5:
so its not just ian that is holding up a deal. its the IRA.

And so the photographic confirmation of such decommissioning is to be found where?

it was a few years ago, and i remember there being at least one photo

might be somewhere on a news site if you search for it

The rev has also said he will not serve in a gov with a terrorist and murderer. Which is a fair point, would the US accept as a senator some one who organised and took part in 9/11 or any other murder of US civilians?
No. So why should people in NI.
also a very good point, and one many people here (in NI) will agree with

The rev has also said he will not serve in a gov with a terrorist and murderer. Which is a fair point, would the US accept as a senator some one who organised and took part in 9/11 or any other murder of US civilians?
No. So why should people in NI.

Because many of the people in NI actually voted for Sinn Fein members. Nearly 1/4 of those who voted in fact!!!

Because many of the people in NI actually voted for Sinn Fein members. Nearly 1/4 of those who voted in fact!!!
25% or fewer of those that voted then.
I don't think any one in NI would or could object to Sinn Fein representatives that had not in the past be actively part of murder and terrorism.
Some people who had relatives in England murdered while they drank or walk the streets find the idea of letting those murderers out offensive, never mind letting them form part of a gov, wars have started over less!
People supported pol pot, Saddam and Mugabie, that did not legitimise those murderers.

25% or fewer of those that voted then.
I don't think any one in NI would or could object to Sinn Fein representatives that had not in the past be actively part of murder and terrorism.
Some people who had relatives in England murdered while they drank or walk the streets find the idea of letting those murderers out offensive, never mind letting them form part of a gov, wars have started over less!
People supported pol pot, Saddam and Mugabie, that did not legitimise those murderers.

About 24% voted for Sinn Fein, while about 26% voted for the DUP, making those the two largest parties.
I agree that those who have suffered at the hands of terrorists would find the idea of those people serving in a governmental position offensive, however the point of the peace process which saw those people (Both republican and loyalist) released from prison was about ending war, not starting it. Your problem is with certain aspects of the agreement, not the fact that these people have been elected.
The comments about pol pot, saddam and mugabie are stupid, nobody voted for these individuals, and there position of power does not derive from the will of the people in the countries they governed.

Sinn Fein got 23.5% of first preference votes, the DUP got 25.7% of first preference votes.

BUT, UUP and DUP = 48.4% first preference votes, SDLP and SF = 40.5% of first preference votes, so an 8% Unionist majority...

i dont want terrorists in power, so im quite happy that a deal wasnt done that would let SF in

Sinn Fein got 23.5% of first preference votes, the DUP got 25.7% of first preference votes.

BUT, UUP and DUP = 48.4% first preference votes, SDLP and SF = 40.5% of first preference votes, so an 8% Unionist majority...

i dont want terrorists in power, so im quite happy that a deal wasnt done that would let SF in


Prior to 1997, there was a great deal more fear in England (Where I live) that there would be an IRA attack. This has pretty much disappeared. I also have family in NI (Both Protestant and Catholic) Who have benefitted greatly from the peace process.

In NI, unlike in Britain, political parties represent the two communities; protestant or catholic, (whereas in Britain the political parties represent those of a particular political view point; left wing right wing etc...) as such the agreement states that the NI government should be made up from members of the two parties which got the most votes from each of the protestant and catholic communities, this is to prevent discrimination against either community.

At the moment these two parties are SF and the DUP. While I agree that the crimes commited by the IRA in the past where abhorent, it does not make sense to exclude Republicans from the political process once they have commited themselves to the peaceful means. To do so would alienate them from that political process and may lead to a return to violence (This is not the same as suggesting that the same political process is being held to ransom). If this happened, then the benefits, which peace has brought would be lost.

Any desire to prevent SF from entering government as the elected representatives of the catholic community is a rejection of politics and if successful may lead to a return to violence. Far better to have former terrorists in government, than active terrorists on the streets!

Peace must be inclusive, and as painful as it may be, it will have to include those who in the past were responsible for violence, especially if, as in the case of some SF members, those individuals have a mandate from the people.

Meh, they're (paramilitaries from all sides) all just ghosts now.

They've moved away from whatever political motives they may have had, devolved into petty crime, intimidation and drugs, and whenever they feel they might be incovenienced, they get their respective parties to wave their names about like they're the Boogieman.

Even if they did decommission, there's nothing to really stop them getting weapons back.

The three things that will put paid to these organisations are religious tolerance, the public's refutal of all they stand for, and better work on behalf of the Intelligence services (who don't do too shabby a job now!) to stop illegal weapons smuggling.

This seems to be something that gets largely lost in all the furore. Ask anyone from the province and they'll tell you the same, the IRA, UDA and LVF have long since diversified their portfolio to the point where republican/loyalist actions are actually a dangerous attention grabber. It's worth noting that of all the actions by these three in recent years I can't recall a single one that could be attributed to the respective political causes. Drugs and protection are now the name of the game. What do you think senior Sinn Fein reps were doing in Colombia? Helping FARC, yes, but in return for what, exactly? Marxist-Leninist solidarity? In many ways its a pretty common story: paramilitary organisation fights for cause; is forced to engage in criminal activities to acquire money; criminal activities gradually become more central; new generation of leadership move away from original cause; paramilitary organisation becomes organised crime organisation.

I've heard an interesting theory that the main reason the Real IRA left the organisation is because they actually wanted to continue the fight against the UK rather than concentrate on the money-making aspects. Hence the name.

The Real IRA was the original IRA, but buy the late 60s they had a very Marxist ideology, many younger members werent happy about this and split to form the Provisional IRA, which is the one that did most of the bombings during the 70s-90s. Omagh bomb was Real IRA though


Adams and McGuinness, two of the leaders of the provisionals, realised they couldnt win by fighting and started talking. but at the same time the provisional IRA was still, and still is, active

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=70 (http://)

About 24% voted for Sinn Fein, while about 26% voted for the DUP, making those the two largest parties.
I agree that those who have suffered at the hands of terrorists would find the idea of those people serving in a governmental position offensive, however the point of the peace process which saw those people (Both republican and loyalist) released from prison was about ending war, not starting it. Your problem is with certain aspects of the agreement, not the fact that these people have been elected.
The comments about pol pot, saddam and mugabie are stupid, nobody voted for these individuals, and there position of power does not derive from the will of the people in the countries they governed.
Well yes and no, people did vote for Mugabie, but the example was a stretch I'll give you that.
I do however object to any of the activities the IRA undertook as being part of a war. A sate of war never existed, it was terrorism. And as to those that thought terrorism was the answer rather than democracy no they should not be part of the democratic process, either side. Sorry but how do we know that should things start going against them and they really lose power in a democratic process they won't get the lip on and start killing people and thier children again?

Well yes and no, people did vote for Mugabie, but the example was a stretch I'll give you that.
I do however object to any of the activities the IRA undertook as being part of a war. A sate of war never existed, it was terrorism. And as to those that thought terrorism was the answer rather than democracy no they should not be part of the democratic process, either side. Sorry but how do we know that should things start going against them and they really lose power in a democratic process they won't get the lip on and start killing people and thier children again?

Replace the word war with violence.
SF have only had a claim to power since 2003, and yet the IRA have maintained a ceasefire since 1997.
What do you propose as an alternative to an inclusive democratic process?
(Read my more recent post)

The Real IRA was the original IRA, but buy the late 60s they had a very Marxist ideology, many younger members werent happy about this and split to form the Provisional IRA, which is the one that did most of the bombings during the 70s-90s. Omagh bomb was Real IRA though


No, the Real IRA are a splinter group that broke away from the Provisional IRA post-PIRA ceasefires: you cannot claim that either they or the Continuity IRA were the original Official IRA.

i gotta read that book buy that guy who was an informer again...he explained it all at the start...

i always thought that was the whole point in the 'real' bit, it was the real IRA...

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=70

This explains who the real IRA are. not sure about the site in general, but this bit seems OK. There are a few errors though, such as refering to the provos as the official IRA.

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=70

This explains who the real IRA are. not sure about the site in general, but this bit seems fairly accurate.

Yeah, that seems a reasonable summary.

i always thought that was the whole point in the 'real' bit, it was the real IRA...

No the 'Real' in 'Real IRA' is the label they chose for themselves, so as to imply that the Provos had sold out their values by entering into the peace process.

Ian Paisley really pisses me off but I must admire him as a politician.He had his political manifesto and he is sticking to it.I don't like him but admire the fact that he is a man of his word.Now I know that he has had links with militants in the past but not on the scale of Sinn Fein,but through all of this the fact his that he has the moral highground and its not his fault that the deal fell through.The real reason is that Sinn Fein were telling the grassroots that the IRA were not getting rid of all the weapons.The grassroots want to have the availibility of arms if the conflict needs to be restarted.They are volatile(and perhaps a little dumb,well they see things in black and white and no inbetween) and need to be appeased.But they should not be appeased.Adams and co. must take a stand.And Paisley has really surprised me.People thought it was impossible that he would consider going into government with Sinn Fein,yet now it is possible.I think that this episode will mean history will eventually see him in a different light.Sinn Fein need to bite the bullet.PIRA will not be humiliated by photograghs.Afterall they have humiliated their own people with some terrible acts in the name of Ireland.Its time for them to go away.They cannot be justified anymore and are no longer needed.

I was officially born a Catholic, and as a legacy of that upbringing (which, as a hardened atheist, I've completely rejected), still broadly favour a united Ireland. Frankly though, as long as the majority in NI want to stay part of the UK, that's fine with me. This is meant to be a democracy.

Because I believe in the principles of democracy, I disagree with all the illegitimate, violent means that have been used in the past to attempt to persuade governments one way or the other on the future of this country. Therefore, despite being a nationalist (with a very small 'n') I am against people like Martin McGuinness being in government. I despise Paisley too, but more because he's such a diehard fundamentalist Christian. At least he is not a terrorist! I don't think it's fair though to say he's fanatically anti-Catholic, as a few here have done; the DUP do a lot of 'community' work for everyone, not just Protestants (my own family being a case in point, living as they do in Paisley's constituency). To be fair, in some measure this is also true of Sinn Fein, but the DUP have been around longer in terms of actual governance and have therefore built up more of a basis for it.

Furthermore, while I agree that if the IRA are to publicly disarm so should loyalists, one of the loyalist paramilitaries (can't remember who it was but studied it for A level History) *did* publicly disarm a few weapons. To me, it was totally inadequate, being only a few guns and whatnot, but the idea was that under the Good Friday Agreement, decommissioning would be more of a 'gesture' to demonstrate a willingness to co-operate peacefully. I therefore think that Paisley is right to demand this of the IRA, but having said that, if one 'side' only did so as part of a gesture, then it's right that the IRA do so in a similar manner. I think both 'sides' should completely disarm, personally, but that's not the most pragmatic of views.

In short, I think Paisley is putting forward the right ideas, and in fairness he's behaving a lot more progressively than he once was. But in my opinion he needs to give some leeway, unless all loyalist paramilitaries get rid of all their weapons in public, which obviously isn't going to happen. Also, as far as I'm concerned, he needs to stop bringing religion so much into politics, but I suppose that's an inevitability in Northern Ireland :rolleyes:

one of the loyalist paramilitaries (can't remember who it was but studied it for A level History) *did* publicly disarm a few weapons. To me, it was totally inadequate, being only a few guns and whatnot, but the idea was that under the Good Friday Agreement, decommissioning would be more of a 'gesture' to demonstrate a willingness to co-operate peacefully.

i *think* it might have been the LVF, but dont quote me on that

i also think they did it more as a symbolic thing...that if the IRA did give up weapons they were prepared to do so as well

i *think* it might have been the LVF, but dont quote me on that

i also think they did it more as a symbolic thing...that if the IRA did give up weapons they were prepared to do so as well
Aye, something like that. I think you're right that it was the LVF, but again I wouldn't be absolutely certain. I burnt all my A level notes when I left school, and can't be bothered looking it up I'm afraid :D

we never did any of that in history A level...only made it as far as 1925, thats boring shit

Some history is always useful, to go back to first principles. The Officials, or "Stickies", followed one of the major strands in Republican thought, going back to Fintan Lalor and Connolly. They declared an unlimited truce in 1973, I think, and moved away from the Gun and Rosary ethos (Provo territory) to what is now today "The Worker's Party" in the Free State. However, along the way, they gave rise to the IRSP, which picked up lots of the original figures from the People's Democracy movement in the sixties, like Bernadette Devlin or John McLoughlin. IRSP of course then mounted its own armed wing, the INLA. However during the late seventies and early eighties there was a lot of contact with notably UVF leaders about working on a common front for a more leftwing strategy, notably with Tommy Hanna.

All the people involved in these negociations, on both sides, were offed by Brit Special forces, masquerading as Provos. As was Seamus Costello.

http://irsm.org/history/

The book by Martin Dillon "The Dirty War" goes into this in great detail ; Ray "Supergrass" Gilmour's "Dead Ground" is useful ; as is Mark Urban's "Big Boys' Rules : the SAS and the Secret Struggle against the IRA".

Anyroad, Tongs Ya Baas :)

I intensely dislike that hateful, partisan, corrupt, religious nutjob.

No, I'm not talking about any US Republican, but "Reverend" Ian Paisley. (Though the latter would fit comfortably into the former.)

at least hes never killed anyone

at least hes never killed anyone
Well, not directly. He's done plenty of cheering for Unionist terrorism in his time.

He just seems to be the most uncomprimising, least progressive politician in the North. I feel that things would go much more smoothly if he wasn't around.

hes supported Unionism, not terrorism

and he wouldnt be in the position hes in today if he wasnt widely supported by Unionists, so maybe its not just him who doesnt want the IRA in power