IRA withdraws weapons commitment Watch

This discussion is closed.
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#21
Report 14 years ago
#21
(Original post by yawn)
What normally happens in mature debate is that questions emanate as a result of the progressive viewpoints from the opposing debaters. You post your viewpoint, I come back with a challenge to your viewpoint and at this stage you would be expected to convince me that what you have said has more credence that what I have said.

I have given you information from different sources to consider - you have not responded in an acceptable way as all you have done is resort to personal insult.

It is impossible to make progress as you fail to adhere to the norm in debate. It is a waste of my time - I am unable to get beyond the hurdle of your instinctive bigotry - so I won't waste any more time. History will speak for itself.
sorry, in a debate it helps to present things that are true or at the very least credible.

what you do is blame everything wrong with NI on ian paisley because hes clearly so evil or the british because we shouldnt be here or some other crap, but you quickly jump to the defence of the IRA and SF whenever anyone dares to question them (even if the anyone, is everyone, including police, government, and ordinary folk in both the UK and ROI). funny that you call me a bigot, blind, ears shut, but complain of personal insult.

of course im sure you wont "waste your time" anymore. getting a bit too much for you is it now that a few people are starting to question you? make a quick exit if you want. wont vindicate anything you've said on this matter in this thread, or before.

so come on...stop being a dummy.
0
-mb-
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#22
Report 14 years ago
#22
(Original post by yawn)
I can see there is no hope of having civilised debate with someone who's blood pressure is threatening to explode simply because a differing opinion is voiced. That speaks volumes of the mentality of Paisleys supporters to me - look at him and you look at his supporters!
Okay I've already dealt with that.

Attributing blame to republicans for the current impasses gets Paisley off the hook. Many people believe that he kiboshed a possible deal on decommissioning at the end of last year: the IRA had offered to disarm fully, but Paisley demanded photographic evidence and made a provocative speech in which he demanded the IRA don sackcloth and ashes!
This was not an issue of one simple photograph. It was more complex than that. There was a fundamental inability to find common ground on confirmation of weapons destruction, as a result of the IRA's obession with "humiliation".

This would not be the first time a unionist leader has been saved from international condemnation by a flurry of allegations against republicans. Those who regard such talk as conspiratorial nonsense might recall that in late 2002, David Trimble was finally beginning to take flak for his intransigence - until sensational allegations of an IRA "spy ring" emerged. Almost all charges relating to that affair were eventually, and quitely, dropped (although they are still investigating evidence that proves that 'intelligence officers' destroyed documents that point to their own involvement- no doubt nothing will come of that!) But Northern Ireland's devolved government has never been resusciated.
I reject absurd conspiracy theories; they are irrelevent to the kind of debate you say you want to have.

Two things have remained true of Northern Ireland since the worst years of the Troubles. First, things are rarely as they appear. Second, it is always vital to ask whose interests are served when unsupported allegations are flung about.
More conspiracy.

There are three possible explanations for the bank raid which precipitated the current mess. It could have been carried out by the IRA with the approval of the Sinn Fein leadership; or by freelancing current or former members of the organisation; or by someone else entirely, possibly someone who would like to see Sinn Fein ostracised and repulicanism's political progress halted.
Theory one is the obvious one. Theory one is the rational explanation, and the one put forward by reliable sources such as the police.
Theory two is absurd, as I have already said, "freelancers" would simply not be able to carry out a raid of this scale and complexity.
Theory three is more preposterous conspiracy.

The British and Irish governments clearly favour the first explanation (as do you!) Their vehemence has fuelled the notion that they must have cast-iron evidence. Perhaps they do. But why, then, have they not produced any of it? In order to believe that the likes of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were complicit in the bank robbery one must make a series of assumptions that make no sense.
I didn't say they were necessarily even aware of it. I meant that their past crimes should have put them in jail long ago! I happily admit that SF and the certain elements of the IRA are at least more seperate than in the past, though by no means entirely divorced. Maybe the evidence is not suitable to produce; it could be
a) compromising to personnel investigating the crime
b) politically sensitive
c) not yet complete, but compelling to those who have seen it
c) a tip off for the criminals that would harm the investigation by driving them underground.
There are many legitimate reasons for not yet producing the evidence.

The current republican leadership has invested two decades in the peace process. They have nothing to gain from its failure. Why then, would they give tactit approval to a massive bank raid? Even if the perpetrators were not caught in the act, Adams and McGuinness would know that suspicion would fall upon them. And they know that such suspicion would in itself be potent enough to wreck the project to which they have dedicated much of their lives.
They have everything to gain from appearing to have control over the process. This is part of their obsession with "humiliation".

Why are SF/IRA obsessed with avoiding humiliation, to the extent that they will not even apologise for the crimes their organisation perpetrated? Why shouldn't terrorists be "made to wear sackcloth and ashes"?
Adams and McGuiness have dedicated other parts of their lives to activities for which they should be in jail.

It is more plausible to believe that individuals who are, or were, members of the IRA carried out the raid for personal profit. But if that is the case, why should the 300,000 Irish nationalists who vote for Sinn Fein be punished in response? One thing is not in doubt. It is Sinn Feins opponents who can reap most benefit from pinning blame for December's robbery on republicans.
Sinn Fein voters are not in anyway being "punished". Especially if, as you believe SF are no longer in full control of all of the IRA.

One of the bank staff who was kidnapped in his own home said that the kidnappers gained entry to his house because they knew all about his background and said they wanted to discuss the Celtic supporters club he ran. He observed that they seemed to have a lot of 'intelligence information' on him. We must ask ourselves who would have that knowledge - gasp - could it have been someone connected with the 'establishment'?
More mad conspiracy.

The Irish government has good reasons of its own to blacken Sinn Feins name. Adam's party is on the rise in the Irish Republic. It has five members of the Irish parliament and its first MEP from the south, and it continues to threaten the establishment parties, Bertie Ahern's in particular. What better way to put a stop to Sinn Feins gallop than to paint it as deceitful and nefarious?
Yet more mad consprracy.

Many Irish republicans were always suspicious of the peace process. They believed that the British government and the unionists were interested only in their defeat, not in genuine political progress. They believed they would be drawn away from the armed struggle, only to be frozen out politically. Recent events give them ample reason to say 'we told you so'.
No, recent events have not shown that. Which events do you believe have shown that? Unionists have been very patient with the "political wing" of a terrorist organisation.

I think you've got a thorough reply now. Your whole post would have been shorter and more logical if it hadn't been interspersed with great chunks of the most hillarious conspiracy theories.
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#23
Report 14 years ago
#23
i think the bank worker yawn refers to lives in poleglass. it wouldnt surprise me if he was in on it taking into account where hes from!...
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#24
Report 14 years ago
#24
(Original post by -mb-)
Okay I've already dealt with that.


This was not an issue of one simple photograph. It was more complex than that. There was a fundamental inability to find common ground on confirmation of weapons destruction, as a result of the IRA's obession with "humiliation".


I reject absurd conspiracy theories; they are irrelevent to the kind of debate you say you want to have.

More conspiracy.


Theory one is the obvious one. Theory one is the rational explanation, and the one put forward by reliable sources such as the police.
Theory two is absurd, as I have already said, "freelancers" would simply not be able to carry out a raid of this scale and complexity.
Theory three is more preposterous conspiracy.


I didn't say they were necessarily even aware of it. I meant that their past crimes should have put them in jail long ago! I happily admit that SF and the certain elements of the IRA are at least more seperate than in the past, though by no means entirely divorced. Maybe the evidence is not suitable to produce; it could be
a) compromising to personnel investigating the crime
b) politically sensitive
c) not yet complete, but compelling to those who have seen it
c) a tip off for the criminals that would harm the investigation by driving them underground.
There are many legitimate reasons for not yet producing the evidence.


They have everything to gain from appearing to have control over the process. This is part of their obsession with "humiliation".

Why are SF/IRA obsessed with avoiding humiliation, to the extent that they will not even apologise for the crimes their organisation perpetrated? Why shouldn't terrorists be "made to wear sackcloth and ashes"?
Adams and McGuiness have dedicated other parts of their lives to activities for which they should be in jail.


Sinn Fein voters are not in anyway being "punished". Especially if, as you believe SF are no longer in full control of all of the IRA.


More mad conspiracy.


Yet more mad consprracy.


No, recent events have not shown that. Which events do you believe have shown that? Unionists have been very patient with the "political wing" of a terrorist organisation.

I think you've got a thorough reply now. Your whole post would have been shorter and more logical if it hadn't been interspersed with great chunks of the most hillarious conspiracy theories.
You have done nothing to respresent a 'thorough' reply - you have dismissed suggestions and labelled facts as conspiracy.

Where else in this so-called democratic alliance of Britain would a particular person/s be adjudged guilty of a crime by a high ranking police chief before all admissable evidence has been produced?

Not in mainland Britain, maybe in Iraq.

There are too many similarities in these accusations with those that followed the bank raid in Dublin in 1973 (which previous to this one, was the largest heist in terms of money stolen in Ireland's history). Then, the IRA was blamed - ultimately it turned out to be Kenneth and Keith Littlejohn. During their trial the brothers claimed they were working for the British Government against the IRA.

They said they had been told to stage the robbery to discredit the organisation and force the Irish goverment to introduce tougher measures against its members.

The British government denied all knowledge of the brothers - however, Ireland's former Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, admitted he had been given diplomatic reports from the British authoriites in January, 1973 about the UK's contact with the Littlejohn brothers.

Brian Nelson, another secret agent for the British government confessed that he colluded with the loyalist terrorists, who in turn, colluded with NI security forces to try to destroy all attempts to bring about any peace.

Do some google searches yourself. Feel free to read whatever you come up with, from whatever sources you choose to pursure. It's all there in history.

You might not like reading stuff like this as it goes against all your endeavours to dismiss or deny that conspiracies in Northern Ireland abound as do they in all countries.

I am attempting to bring it out into the open, so expect to be met with much hostility from those defending the status quo. It really doesn't bother me
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#25
Report 14 years ago
#25
Incidentally, regarding evidence of weapons destruction - the IRA agreed that the destruction process would be witnessed by de Chastelians British appointed overseeing body, a minister from both catholic and protestant churches and even Iain Paisley himself if he wished!
He didn't accept the offer.
If he had he would have no grounds to say the procedure hadn't been carried out and could no longer procrastinate.
That much is unarguable!
0
-mb-
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#26
Report 14 years ago
#26
(Original post by yawn)
You have done nothing to respresent a 'thorough' reply - you have dismissed suggestions and labelled facts as conspiracy.
This is pure nonsense. I have dismissed your conspiracy theories as conspiracy, and dealt properly with anything that is valid. I have not dismissed any facts as conspiracy, because no facts have been presented in the paragraphs that I have highlighted as being conspiracy.

Where else in this so-called democratic alliance of Britain would a particular person/s be adjudged guilty of a crime by a high ranking police chief before all admissable evidence has been produced?

Not in mainland Britain, maybe in Iraq.
Have you heard of the Belmarsh detainees? Evidence against them is not brought for a similar set of reasons, although they are already in jail, whereas the perpertrators of the robbery are not, which simply creates a further reason for not releasing the evidence. My example list of valid reasons clearly escaped you, so here it is again:
a) compromising to personnel investigating the crime
b) politically sensitive
c) not yet complete, but compelling to those who have seen it
c) a tip off for the criminals that would harm the investigation by driving them underground.
There are many legitimate reasons for not yet producing the evidence.
(btw. I was wondering if it had even occurred to you that the evidence against SF/IRA was so damning that they did not want to release it so that the "peace process" could continue, rather than collapse altogether?)

There are too many similarities in these accusations with those that followed the bank raid in Dublin in 1973 (which previous to this one, was the largest heist in terms of money stolen in Ireland's history). Then, the IRA was blamed - ultimately it turned out to be Kenneth and Keith Littlejohn. During their trial the brothers claimed they were working for the British Government against the IRA.

They said they had been told to stage the robbery to discredit the organisation and force the Irish goverment to introduce tougher measures against its members.

The British government denied all knowledge of the brothers - however, Ireland's former Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, admitted he had been given diplomatic reports from the British authoriites in January, 1973 about the UK's contact with the Littlejohn brothers.

Brian Nelson, another secret agent for the British government confessed that he colluded with the loyalist terrorists, who in turn, colluded with NI security forces to try to destroy all attempts to bring about any peace.
Although the British authorities have done things wrong in the past, it is perfectly clear that they do not act in this way today. That would no longer be in their interests; loyalist paramilitaries are now much less active than the ever-present IRA, and they are not being propped-up by our security services. The Bloody Sunday mentality is long gone.
It's in the UK's interest to get this whole N.I. problem solved, rather than try to "win" in N.I. which clearly isn't possible.

Do some google searches yourself. Feel free to read whatever you come up with, from whatever sources you choose to pursure. It's all there in history.

You might not like reading stuff like this as it goes against all your endeavours to dismiss or deny that conspiracies in Northern Ireland abound as do they in all countries.

I am attempting to bring it out into the open, so expect to be met with much hostility from those defending the status quo. It really doesn't bother me
There are conspiracies both ways. You have also ignored what may have been in the best interests of the Littlejohn brothers or Nelson, when defending themselves. I am not averse to reading about historical facts, but there are very few in N.I.'s recent history.

More importantly, you have ignored the whole issue I raised of SF/IRA's continued intransigence. You have failed to give a rational explanation of who carried out this robbery, other than governent security organisations. (You probably believe the CIA blew up the Twin Towers!)

You have also failed to explain how blaming the IRA is "punishing" republic (SF) voters, or what recent evidence shows that the intention was to allow the IRA to partake in the peace process to weaken it, and then to "freeze it out".
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#27
Report 14 years ago
#27
(Original post by yawn)
You have done nothing to respresent a 'thorough' reply - you have dismissed suggestions and labelled facts as conspiracy.

Where else in this so-called democratic alliance of Britain would a particular person/s be adjudged guilty of a crime by a high ranking police chief before all admissable evidence has been produced?

Not in mainland Britain, maybe in Iraq.

There are too many similarities in these accusations with those that followed the bank raid in Dublin in 1973 (which previous to this one, was the largest heist in terms of money stolen in Ireland's history). Then, the IRA was blamed - ultimately it turned out to be Kenneth and Keith Littlejohn. During their trial the brothers claimed they were working for the British Government against the IRA.

They said they had been told to stage the robbery to discredit the organisation and force the Irish goverment to introduce tougher measures against its members.

The British government denied all knowledge of the brothers - however, Ireland's former Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, admitted he had been given diplomatic reports from the British authoriites in January, 1973 about the UK's contact with the Littlejohn brothers.

Brian Nelson, another secret agent for the British government confessed that he colluded with the loyalist terrorists, who in turn, colluded with NI security forces to try to destroy all attempts to bring about any peace.

Do some google searches yourself. Feel free to read whatever you come up with, from whatever sources you choose to pursure. It's all there in history.

You might not like reading stuff like this as it goes against all your endeavours to dismiss or deny that conspiracies in Northern Ireland abound as do they in all countries.

I am attempting to bring it out into the open, so expect to be met with much hostility from those defending the status quo. It really doesn't bother me
feel free to do all that if you want, but start your own thread on it, dont hijack this one and think your attempt to divert from the IRAs shameful behaviour will wash.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#28
Report 14 years ago
#28
(Original post by d750)
The IRA aren't a political party, aren't elected and consequently don't have an electoral mandate. It's simply idiotic to say that they do. You can't assume that the IRA represent the views of those who vote for repulican parties.
I think you must have 'skim read' my post as you totally misread what I said.

When I stated that in a democracy, a political party with an electoral mandate could not be sidelined from the political process I was referring to Sinn Fein. I assume that those who voted for Sinn Fein want Sinn Fein to represent their interests - and SF had over 300,000 votes making them the second largest elected 'voice' in NI.
0
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#29
Report 14 years ago
#29
IRA withdraws weapons commitment.
Predictable to say the least.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#30
Report 14 years ago
#30
(Original post by -mb-)
This is pure nonsense. I have dismissed your conspiracy theories as conspiracy, and dealt properly with anything that is valid. I have not dismissed any facts as conspiracy, because no facts have been presented in the paragraphs that I have highlighted as being conspiracy.


Have you heard of the Belmarsh detainees? Evidence against them is not brought for a similar set of reasons, although they are already in jail, whereas the perpertrators of the robbery are not, which simply creates a further reason for not releasing the evidence. My example list of valid reasons clearly escaped you, so here it is again:
a) compromising to personnel investigating the crime
b) politically sensitive
c) not yet complete, but compelling to those who have seen it
c) a tip off for the criminals that would harm the investigation by driving them underground.
There are many legitimate reasons for not yet producing the evidence.
(btw. I was wondering if it had even occurred to you that the evidence against SF/IRA was so damning that they did not want to release it so that the "peace process" could continue, rather than collapse altogether?)



Although the British authorities have done things wrong in the past, it is perfectly clear that they do not act in this way today. That would no longer be in their interests; loyalist paramilitaries are now much less active than the ever-present IRA, and they are not being propped-up by our security services. The Bloody Sunday mentality is long gone.
It's in the UK's interest to get this whole N.I. problem solved, rather than try to "win" in N.I. which clearly isn't possible.


There are conspiracies both ways. You have also ignored what may have been in the best interests of the Littlejohn brothers or Nelson, when defending themselves. I am not averse to reading about historical facts, but there are very few in N.I.'s recent history.

More importantly, you have ignored the whole issue I raised of SF/IRA's continued intransigence. You have failed to give a rational explanation of who carried out this robbery, other than governent security organisations. (You probably believe the CIA blew up the Twin Towers!)

You have also failed to explain how blaming the IRA is "punishing" republic (SF) voters, or what recent evidence shows that the intention was to allow the IRA to partake in the peace process to weaken it, and then to "freeze it out".
You admit that British authorities have done things wrong in the past relating to using secret intelligence/agents to undermine others who played no part in the event and said they no longer do it! Have you heard of the recent 'Hutton' and 'Butler' reports? Governments don't stop carrying out covert actions designed to suit their own purposes - to think they do is extremely naive.

'loyalist paramilitaries are now much less active than the ever-present IRA..'

Have a look at the Independent Monitoring Commissions 3rd report of 4th November, 2004, particularly pages 19-22 which show line graphs highlighting the exent of loyalist criminal activities in comparison to republicans.

Their conclusion states:

"Despite some considerable reductions the level of parmilitary violence remain high, particularly with loyalist groups.

Since March 1st this year there has been a welcome reduction in the numbers of victims of violence short of murder compared with the two preceding six-month periods. This is most striking in respect of shootings; the reductions have been proportionately greater on the part of republican groups."

You will see what I meant by saying that blaming the IRA for the Northern Bank raid will punish those 300,000 people who voted for Sinn Fein when the IMC report is published tomorrow. It is widely expected that the commission will recommend 'exluding Sinn Fein' from any input into the administration of devolved government despite their electoral mandate.

You talk of Sinn Feins intransigence, it is wrong to state that. The intransgience (if any) is on the part of the IRA and Sinn Fein has only been their messenger for the benefit of both British and Irish governments (although I'm pleased to see that they are not going to do this in future) - I see intransigence on the side of the DUP also. When the NI Assembly was first set up following the Good Friday Agreement, the DUP said they would take their seats in the 'parliament' purely to disrupt the proceedings as they would NEVER share power with nationalists. Every single thing they have done since has been designed to bring down the GF agreement and anyone who can't see that is blind!

I am wondering why you are so interested in this whole discussion seeing as you have 'no connection whatsoever' with the whole sorry saga. Can you explain why?

I am interested in the same way as I am interested in any conflict that involves such intractable problems. As an inquistive person I seek out and consider the evidence on both sides and look for a middle ground. We all have a one sided slant thrown at us by the media - I look for the slant of the other side to give some balance - must be because I'm a Libran!

I defend the undefended - whether an unwanted baby in the womb, a person ajudged to have 'no quality of life' and at risk of having their life ended by another as a result, or a person who is persecuted or treated unfairly because they are in a minority or do not have an advocate. I am a truly wonderful person! :rolleyes:
0
d750
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#31
Report 14 years ago
#31
(Original post by yawn)
I think you must have 'skim read' my post as you totally misread what I said.

When I stated that in a democracy, a political party with an electoral mandate could not be sidelined from the political process I was referring to Sinn Fein. I assume that those who voted for Sinn Fein want Sinn Fein to represent their interests - and SF had over 300,000 votes making them the second largest elected 'voice' in NI.
You didn't really say that. You said:

(Original post by yawn)
I would say, if I was in the position of the IRA and knew that I had not carried out the Northern Bank raid - what is the point of making concessions? Whatever I do is never enough so I'll stop here - for the time being.

There is just so much distrust between loyalists and republicans. Whilst loyalists/unionists continue to be armed to the hilt it is no wonder that republicans are loathe to completely disarm - particularly when the other side keeps 'pulling the rug from under the feet' of any sign of preparedness to share power on a democratic basis.

A point to remember - In a democracy there can be no 'getting on with it' without the meaningful presence of a party which has an electoral mandate.
You made absolutely no distinction between SF and the IRA.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#32
Report 14 years ago
#32
(Original post by d750)
You didn't really say that. You said:



You made absolutely no distinction between SF and the IRA.
I said 'a party which has an electoral mandate'. Does the IRA have an electoral mandate? No - they don't. So why would there be an expectation for me to make any distinction between a party that does and an organisation which doesn't? :confused:
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#33
Report 14 years ago
#33
(Original post by yawn)
I said 'a party which has an electoral mandate'. Does the IRA have an electoral mandate? No - they don't. So why would there be an expectation for me to make any distinction between a party that does and an organisation which doesn't? :confused:
SF and the IRA are one and the same whether you want to avoid it or not. thats why they are getting dumped.

frankly people are tired of their stalling, defending terrorists, saying shooting civilians isnt a crime etc etc...
0
d750
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#34
Report 14 years ago
#34
(Original post by yawn)
I said 'a party which has an electoral mandate'. Does the IRA have an electoral mandate? No - they don't. So why would there be an expectation for me to make any distinction between a party that does and an organisation which doesn't? :confused:
Ok. I probably misunderstood your post. I assumed you were implying that because SF had an electoral mandate, and SF and the IRA were effectively the same, then the IRA had an electoral mandate. Presumably that's not what you're saying?
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#35
Report 14 years ago
#35
(Original post by d750)
Ok. I probably misunderstood your post. I assumed you were implying that because SF had an electoral mandate, and SF and the IRA were effectively the same, then the IRA had an electoral mandate. Presumably that's not what you're saying?
that is what she's saying, shame she's wrong though...
0
d750
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#36
Report 14 years ago
#36
(Original post by technik)
that is what she's saying, shame she's wrong though...
But that's what you're saying as well, isn't it?

(Original post by technik)
SF and the IRA are one and the same whether you want to avoid it or not.
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#37
Report 14 years ago
#37
(Original post by d750)
But that's what you're saying as well, isn't it?
a misread on my part...scrap it, or just switch it around
0
d750
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#38
Report 14 years ago
#38
(Original post by technik)
a misread on my part...scrap it, or just switch it around
Fair enough. I thought it was fairly unlikely that you'd be agreeing with yawn.
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#39
Report 14 years ago
#39
(Original post by d750)
Fair enough. I thought it was fairly unlikely that you'd be agreeing with yawn.
doesnt happen often
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#40
Report 14 years ago
#40
(Original post by technik)
doesnt happen often
That's true! We are on opposite sides of the fence on most things.

Hey - there was one thing we were in agreement about - banning smoking in pubs.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (105)
17.65%
It's just nice to be back! (163)
27.39%
Not great so far... (212)
35.63%
I want to drop out! (115)
19.33%

Watched Threads

View All