Blair: IRA can change

[emad]

Blair: IRA can change

LONDON, June 28 (UPI) -- The IRA can change into an organization that rejects violence and threats of violence, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said.

Speaking with Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern after talks Monday in London, Blair called on the paramilitary group to move into a "different frame, a different modus operandi where it is no longer posing a threat of violence or violence itself."

Earlier this month Ahern suggested IRA parades and old boys' reunions could be tolerated, provided the group halted all paramilitary activity.

The British and Irish governments are waiting for the IRA to respond to Sinn Fein Leader Gerry Adam's call for a renunciation of the armed struggle.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050628-09100400-bc-britain-ira.xml


SURE....and 'Osama supplied Saddam with yellowcake uranium'........

[MaineDem]

1. If the British Army would unoccupy Ireland that might be a good sign

Shut up, Tony!

[JohnnyBoots]

2. The Irish hate the English for

thier freedom, not the centuries of oppression, broken deals, lies, murder and rape.

[bennywhale]

9. I'm English and have never met an Irishmen who hates me. We meet all

the time through work on holidays in both Ireland and Britain. Its once again the Hollywood led, simplistic American view of the world which you apparently know little about.

[JohnnyBoots]

20. I have a couple English rugby buddies, it's always fun to bust thier

stones about the whole thing over a couple of pints. That being said, on a general scale I don't think there is any love lost between them.

[bennywhale]

22. I'm not sure about you but most people i know and have met take people

at face value rather than basing mass hatred on nationalism. I think the British isles have moved on from that slightly, but thats just my humble opinion having lived here all my life.

Also you'll find in Ireland there is often very little interest amongst a large portion of the population vis a vis Northern Ireland and the British

[Henny Penny]

33. well they do have a few annoying habits!....

but mostly they're not that bad!

Really!

[bennywhale]

10. The British Army don't occupy Ireland.

They are based in the province of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is in the UK. Thats like saying why don't the American army unnocupy Texas.

[maveric]

13. Its called "Northern Ireland"! The Brits stole it from the Irish.

Like the US in Iraq.

[MisterP]

14. or Texas again...

[bennywhale]

15. Northern Ireland was British before the US existed. Do you now

suggest that the whole US army unoccupy the whole of North America and return it to its rightful owners.

[Henny Penny]

35. Act of Union was 1801... now when was American independence???

[Ken Burch]

59. I think he was dating it either to 1690, when

William of Orange(the new Protestant King of England who didn't speak a word of English himself)defeated James II(the Stewart king who had converted to Catholicism)in the Battle of the Boyne.

(Weirdly, it was William, not James, who had the support of the Vatican.)

Or he could be dating it to the Twelfty Century, when Pope Adrian(the only English pope ever chosen, which of course had nothing whatsoever to do with it)declared that Ireland belonged to the British sovereign.

[Ken Burch]

43. Ok.

At least I wouldn't mind if we gave Texas back to Mexico.

[H2O Man]

65. You err in your thinking.

Northern Ireland has never been British.

[MaineDem]

26. The Brits occupy a portion of the province of Ulster

It's still Ireland and shouldn't be a part of the UK.

Six counties actually.

[bennywhale]

28. In your opinion it shouldn't be part of the UK, but have you asked the

people that live there. A majority of whom (the protestants) seem to think it should belong to the UK. Do you propose forcibly transferring these people into a different nationality against their will. The (predominantly Catholic and British born) people who wish to be part of Ireland obviously have a greivance which i accept entirely but your simplistic solution would be criminal.

The descendant protestants of Northern Ireland have been there longer than you have been in America, so would you accept a proposal of either forcibly removing you and family from the US or handing control to the native Americans, or later, Texas etc, back to Mexico. Actually what about the US back to Britain, France etc. They owned that land before you, you should give it back. It was forcibly removed from the native Americans, and the European powers. America also extended its empire ever westwards to the pacific coast. Give that back as well.

Come to think of it Dublin was established by the Vikings, have you considered the legitimate greivance of the Norwegians in all this. And now we're on the subject the ancient Britains migrated from what is now Israel and Syria 14,000 years ago, i think Syria and Israel should be British, i'm off to start a campaign, thanks for the answer.

[Tweed]

62. I'll work on that....

as soon as the bloody English give back Ireland to the Irish. A Protestant majority? Oh and what a small majority it is too.

[H2O Man]

66. Your lack of knowledge

is evident from some of the foolish things you post here.

[1932]

3. How any progressive could criticize Labour's NI policy...

...I do not understand.

Doesn't any remember the way the Tories used fear of the IRA to convince people to vote against their best interests...just .... like...Republicans in the US do today with terrorism????

[emad]

4. The 1998 Good Friday Agreement is a fraudsters' charter.

n/t

[1932]

6. Something's missing here.

It's called an argument.

[Maeve]

5. Of course they can; they have several times

They had virtually disappeared until the attack July 27, 1970 when the police allowed loyalists to shoot and fire-bomb Catholic homes in the Short Strand. But when they stood and fought, protecting the area until dawn, folks stopped saying IRA meant "I Ran Away". One of the best IRA-recruiting mistakes the Brits made.

And they've kept the cease-fire for the past ten years (most of the continued sectarian violence has been among the loyalist paramilitaries and some from the dissident groups that broke from the IRA, like CIRA or RIRA)

[bennywhale]

8. I wonder if the kneecapless, elbowless, and dead Catholics would agree

that the IRA have kept their ceasefire.

[Maeve]

16. Trot out your proof

All must be of IRA--not PIRA or CIRA--members involved, since 1995.

The US State Dept. no longer lists it as a terrorist organization but does list four loyalist paramilitaries.

Source:http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/uvf.html

Oh and...accusations do not constitute proof in the US, despite the attempts of the right-wing to make it so.

[bennywhale]

17. How about asking the Mcartney sisters. A member of the defenders of the

catholic community gutted their brother from "groin to kneck" outside a pub.

You are either deliberately blind or naive to think that the IRA are not involved in violence against their own community. They are violent people.

Adams said recently, if you recall "they haven't gone away you know", a blatant threat of violence within a democratic system.

The US also didn't list the Mujehadeen, the Contra's, Colombian Paramilitaries, KLA,.......as terrorists at one time or another.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE.

You seem to assume i somehow support loyalist terrorists by your mention of them. This isn't about "this side is better than that side", i just don't like indiscriminate murderers and violence of all persuasions.

The IRA are murderers and terrorists. As are the UDA, UVF, UFF.

[Maeve]

19. And you assume I defend violence

No, I just refuse to accept accusations as proof. I mentioned the loyalists because they are treated as non-existant in any discussion that comes up, yet they are responsible for MORE civilian killings than the IRA. The idea that the phrase "they haven't gone away" is a threat of violence strikes me as absurd; and I am neither blind nor naive. I do see the issue from a different POV, but not an uniformed one. You want to trade research book titles?

Not all the IRA are the vicious, violent folk you seem to be painting them to be.

Oh, and the Irish were not "British" until the Act of Union was passed in 1800 following a gerrymandered and totally corrupt vote.

[bennywhale]

21. Did you see the press conference at which Adams said "they haven't gone

away you know"

It was during the last decommisioning fuck up, and it was a blatant threat, of which Adams is not unfamiliar with.

You are right that "not all IRA are vicious, violent folk" but a majority are, and the group as an entity certainly is.

When you compare the Loyalists with the IRA are you restricting that comparison in terms of murder rates to the present IRA in its present form. My point is you are comparing a variety of groups with one.

The most murderous group was the IRA. They aren't some band of brave Irish warriors, they are cold blooded killers.

It would be interesting to trade book titles as i can almost hear the selection of names from where your information comes from. I am also very well informed and well experienced in the troubles, and i try to take as an objective view as possible. However due to your post decorations i'm not sure if you can.

And my assumption that you defend violence. Well it certainly sounds like you do. I find both groups of terrorists and gangsters abhorrent. Their crimes being off the moral radar completely with no moral high ground left.

[Maeve]

23. " due to your post decorations"

Yes, since I speak Irish, I'm obviously incapable of being objective. :eyes:

Sorry, luv, no more debate--it's time for my rang as Gaelige!

[bennywhale]

24. Ok no problem. I didn't mean to be offensive, just pointing out that you

are obviously coming from one "side" in the conflict.

Oh well.

Remember. Murder of innocent people = BAD

[Maeve]

25. And you plaese try to remember this

Assuming you understand a person's motives/biases without knowing that person also = BAD.

While I abhor the violence of the loyalists as much as you despise the violence of the IRA/PIRA/CIRA groups, I equally reject the idea that it is okay to demonize ones opponents.

When we start painting a group as less-than-human, determining that "they" are worse than "us", we set up the same situation that Bushies created to make Gitmo and Abu Garib possible. We can never have a political solution when we hold that mind-set of "us" against "them". Only by understanding your opponent will you be able to reach agreement. On that point, Karl Rove was right--it's the "liberal" approach to ending conflict, not the "conservative" way of escalating it.

There is no one I would not negotiate with to end a war. I would happily sit down and talk to UDA/UVF/LVF/Red Hand Defenders/Orange Volunteers if I thought I could work out a peaceful solution to this mess in NI just as I would talk with bin Laden and Dubya to find a way out of the "war on terror".

That is my "side", the side of negotiation and peaceful resolution.

[bennywhale]

27. I abhor the violence of both sides as i mentioned in my earlier post. You

also say that you "abhor the violence of the loyalists as much as you (I) despise the violence of the IRA/PIRA/CIRA"

Again i can't help but get the implication from that statement that you despise the loyalist violence more than the nationalists violence. Through your post the implication is that the IRA/PIRA/CIRA are more justified in their violence. Is this your position?

I agree with you entirely that it shouldn't be a debate consisting of defending one side against the other, and this was a criticism i outlined against your position in a previous post to you.

I also heartily agree that negotiation ands dealings must be had with these terrorist groups, what i do not accept however is that they are righteous people in any way. They are warped and devoid of morals.

The UDA/UVF/UFF/LVF and the IRA/PIRA/CIRA/RIRA are murderous gangsters, end of story, but if dealing with them brings peace thats what must be done, however in no way would i ever trust any of them nor would i ever respect them. You must accept also that many of their political representatives such as Adams and Mcguinness (add loyalist names also) have blood up to their elbows, and are not deserving of respect but are making up for their past wrongs in my mind.

The moist eyed myth of the IRA as some glorious Irish warrior group or freedom fighters must be dispelled, which is what the Mcartney sisters tried to do (under threat from the IRA) when they travelled to America to meet Bush on St Patricks day.

[Maeve]

29. And you must accept that the British govt has blood on its hands too

Not in the long past, either. Shall we not trust them, either?

You seem more intent on reading my "implications" than discussing the issues. I don't have that kind of time to waste.

[bennywhale]

31. Well, thanks for avoiding my question, i'll take that as an admission. I

do accept the British government have blood on their hands, but not this present one (concerning NI). Incidents such as bloody Sunday are a stain on the British army, but that does not detract from the facts. The facts are that these politicians have private militia which they are willing to use. They are willing to use them to walk into fish and chip shops and blow people to pieces, they are willing to plant bombs in English pubs and splatter body parts of young lads and lasses across the bar, who have no knowledge or part of Northern Ireland, they are willing to kill little boys who've saved their pocket money up to buy trainers (sneakers)in shopping streets. They are willing to 'sixpack' (shooting off elbows, ankles, and knees) young boys in their own community for stealing, taking drugs, or other misdemeanors where they've been judge, jury and punisher.

I'm just trying to dispel the myth of freedom fighters and replace it with the reality.

I don't deny the British government has blood on its hands as every government around the world does, its just that IRA/Sinn Fein must be seen for what they are, and it ain't nice.

[Maeve]

32. You assume too much

Again. It's beyond tedious.

You also seem to insist on a warrior/murderer dicotomy and anyone who disagrees with you mush be "with" the terrorists...now, where else do we see that reasoning in this post 9/11 world? :think:

When the British govt. kicks convicted murderers Mark Wright and James Fisher out of the army and stops stonewalling on the Dublin/Monaghan bombings it's hands will be cleaner.

[bennywhale]

39. Why do keep assuming i'm defending the British government. Not once have

i done so. I agree with your last paragraph entirely and condemn the British government (often in the form of shouting at the TV) daily.

But it seems so hard for you to accept that the myth of the IRA that you've built up, no doubt reinforced by Hollywood propaganda, is false.

The IRA oppress their own community and have indiscriminately murdered people in Northern Ireland and mainland Britain. They are not nice people. I don't wish for you to be with the terrorists or against them like Bush would demand at all, and you are deliberately misrepresenting my position.

I just can't understand why you can't see the IRA for what they are, or admit they murder innocent people. Could you do that?

[Maeve]

40. I see just fine

I never, NEVER said the IRA are heroes. Not once. I have no idea what "myth" you seem convinced that I hold. :shrug:

I DID say they could change and that they have done so in the past. Some have murdered innocents, never denied that. The individuals involved should be handled by the criminal system.

As to the British govt., you specifically said this particular govt does not have blood on its hands as re NI. I disagree.

[bennywhale]

41. In what way do they have blood on their hands. I would agree that they

haven't brought certain people to justice, which is wrong, but which incident of the Blaire government was murderous in Northern Ireland?

Don't get me wrong (as you seem intent on doing) i hate Blair and his New Labour cabal, i just like to deal in facts.

[Ken Burch]

44. Of course, the British Army's attempted murder of Bernadette McAliskey

in her own home(an unprovoked attack from which she has never fully recovered)was also terrorism.

[Henny Penny]

34. Benny, do you have an NI connection. You seem to get very emotional

about it for an outsider. (I completely disagree with your analysis btw-)

[bennywhale]

37. Which part of the analysis do you disagree with. That the IRA are

murderers? That the UDA et al are murderers? That Mcguinness and Adams have blood on thier hands? That the IRA oppress the Catholic community? That the UDA et al oppress the Protestant community?

[Henny Penny]

38. I suppose I just think you have the wrong end of the stick..

but of course there are two ends!

In my view terrible things happened in NI in the past. (I know, I'm from there). They were done by people on all sides with motivations ranging from the noble to the down right evil.

Now we are in a situation where things have improved to an extent that no-one would have believed possible in the 1980s or early 90s. And I think we should be doing whatever we can to build on that.

Yes there are still thugs and hard men acting reprehensibly, but there are also more sophisticated operators who have been able to more or less control things. The McCartney killing and various loyalist feuds etc are incidents where the controls have failed in some way. And I would worry that the McCartney case is an example of the control structures breaking down, perhaps because of a perceived lack of political progress.

[bennywhale]

42. The murder of Robert Mcartney had nothing to do with the political process

or its breakdown, nor did it have anything to do with "control breakdown" or any other sanitised political language one cares to use. It was murder, and it happened because the IRA consists of murderers. There was also a Sinn Fein candidate in the pub at the time who has done fuck all to see justice done. she should hang her head in shame.

I agree that Northern Ireland is better, however i must insist that murderers are taken seriously. The IRA are not freedom fighters nor glorious Irish warriors, they are cowardly murderers and should be treated as such.

[Henny Penny]

45. The McCartney murder was not sanctioned by the IRA in

the same way that murders carried out by soldiers in the British army are not sanctioned by the British army. Unfortunately all armies, by their nature, attract a certain percentage of people who behave like this.

In my view, the control structures of these organisations should not be weakened as that would unleash the thuggish element that certainly exists.

The SF leadership did every thing they could to get the people responsible to give themselves up and witnesses to come forward.

Two party candidates and a former councillor were in the bar. They did not give statements to the PSNI but did give statements to the police ombudsman, whom they presumably saw as an "honest broker."

The MSM are not always reliable sources of information. The reporting of most SF issues from the NI bank robbery on, was a definite and concerted attempt to lessen the SF vote in the elections and was particularly successful in North Belfast.

I would love to see the person/persons who killed this guy in jail. The question is how do we bring it about?

[bennywhale]

46. For starters the IRA is not an army. Secondly Sinn Fein did NOT do all

it could to get witnesses to come forward. They stayed silent for a week and as political pressure grew they spoke to the IRA who then came out with the bizarre attempt at justice by offering to shoot dead those responsible. That shows how the IRA hierarchy view the world. It highlights the prism through which they see how things should be done. So these "control structures" you talk about are being headed by thes sort of people.

Furthermore there is a thuggish element throughout every society. The problem with the paramilitaries is that they exacerbate it, they train and indoctrinate, they attract murderers. If disbanded and these control structures gone, what would be "unleashed"?. Dispirate criminals. Far less dangerous than organised powerful militia. Look at the UDA, UVF, etc. They still exist and have diversified into major players in Britain's drugs trade, reaping mayhem as far a feild as Bolton in England. Now if these disbanded would NI not be a more peaceful place. without oppressive militias, guns, bombs, and organisations who trade in murder?

And thanks for reminding me about the Norther Bank robbery. This is a political party's private militia robbing banks to fund itself (presumably because funding from America is drying up) within a democratic process. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

[Ken Burch]

47. Still, the reality is that Sinn Fein, and I don't like this any more than

you do, Bennywhale, will always be the majority party in the Catholic community of NI. Therefore, excluding them will permanently disenfranchise the majority of the Catholic community and make any power-sharing proposal or other political solution meaningless and doomed to failure.

Or do you actually think it would be a legitimate approach to go back to permanent Direct Rule, which would end all hope of peace forever?

[bennywhale]

50. Their is no chance of any other party becoming the representatives of the

Catholic community while Sinn Fein retain a private army. Sinn Fein will retain a monopoly as the voice of Catholics by terrifying them into submission. Just look at Mcguinness' threats to the Mcartney sisters. I know that nearly all terrorist problems worldwide have been dealt with by addressing the greivances of the group that the terrorists proport to represent and i support this even though it means dealing with the murderers, but NI must move now beyond this. The IRA are now a gangster organisation with no legitimate reason to exist. The democratic process is the only way forward and it is stalling due to the IRA's continued existence and continued integration with Sinn Fein. The greivances of the Catholic community are being addressed the thing holding this back is the IRA.

[flaminbats]

7. Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt...

If the IRA can change..why not al Qaeda? :eyes:

[bennywhale]

11. The IRA haven't changed.

[bennywhale]

12. Ask the Mcartney sisters if they've changed

[Ken Burch]

48. It should be noted that the McCartney sisters say

that they still support Sinn Fein and will continue to vote for it.

[bennywhale]

51. After they'd considered standing for election themselves yes. The

backtrack on that was puzzling wasn't it?

I wander if the death threats and knocks on the door in the middle of the night for a quiet word had anything to do with it.

I fear for these brave women now that the media is finished with them.

[Ken Burch]

53. I fear for them myself, but I think their position on this

Comes from a belief in the party's objectives, and not
a climbdown on accusations on the rogue elements and the thugs
who were responsible for Robert's killings.

[Ken Burch]

54. And it's also unfair to blame IRA violence for intimidating Catholics into

voting Sinn Fein.

Indeed, in the earlier years of the Troubles(post 1969 variety)
the IRA was much MORE violent and Sinn Fein's vote was much smaller.

This situation, according to your analysis, should not have existed.

Yet it did, and yet the present situation does.

Why?

I would put it down to these causes:

1)Continued Unionist intransigence on power-sharing, and the increased evidence of right-wing Unionist feeling being on the rise as shown by the rising support for Paisley's rhetoricall terrorist DUP.

2)The inability or unwillingness of the Social Democratic and Labour Party(SDLP)to fight hard for the interests of the Catholic/Nationalist community on the political front(and also, the SDLP's abandonment, despite it's name, of support for anything remotely resembling socialism or the specific interests of the WORKING CLASS section of the Catholic/Nationalist community, which happens to be a majority of that community.)

To say "they only vote Sinn Fein because the IRA makes 'em do it" is an incredibly insulting statement to Sinn Fein's supporters.

And again, I hate the IRA, as I hate the UDA, the DUP and the other sources of Unionist ugliness, which is equally responsible for the continuation of the stalemate.

[bennywhale]

56. IRA/Sinn Fein have now got a monopoly on being the representatives of

the Catholic community both politically and (in their view )morally. They are power crazed bullies and are a hindarence to peace.

(btw "Paisley's rhetorical terrorism." I like that, i'm going to use it.)

[Ken Burch]

58. Yes, at the moment they do have that level of support.

And, as I said, I don't like it any more than you.
But the point I'm trying to make is that you can't put
that level of support down strictly to intimidation
(Which sounds like the Israeli Likudnik delusion that the majority
of Palestinians would gladly accept permanent Israeli control
of the West Bank and Gaza if only it weren't for "intimidation" by the PLO and Hamas.)

For whatever reason, Sinn Fein has a legitimacy with those people, and thus it is undemocratic to exclude it from the process.

Peace means getting those who are violent to agree
to stop being violent. Peace can't come from "crushing
the Provo bastards", because, historically, using force
to crush a violent faction has no result but the creation of
other violent factions.

[bennywhale]

60. I would never suggest either. A situation must be reached however when

the Catholic community has a real democratic choice in electing representatives for themselves who are not linked with killers. That is what i believe most want and Sinn Fein/IRA hinder that.

The Israel Palestine was a disingenuous portrayal of my post and quite crass.

[Ken Burch]

61. Well, how do we achieve that, then?

My own feeling has always been that there should have been no interruption of the Executive. Power-sharing should have been allowed to continue and to demonstrate that, contrary to what the "hard men" said, change could come without using the gun.

Now that Trimble and Paisley have destroyed that hope with their repeated demands that the IRA humiliate itself by destroying weapons they already weren't using so that Unionist could gloat about the Republican "surrender", what do we do now?

[bennywhale]

55. The killers were not 'rogue elements', the entire IRA is a rogue element,

i repeat, that the IRA hierachy offered to murder the alledged perpetrators of the crime. This is not a group of righteous people, it is a group of murderers, some of their members just happened to murder the wrong person politically and the IRA's answer was to murder them. Have you noticed how many times murder was mentioned in that sentence?

I think for you to suggest that the Mcartney sisters weren't threatened into not standing against a Sinn Fein candidate is either naive or deliberate denial.

[Bridget Burke]

18. Ahern suggested they can hold parades!

Ought to liven up Parade Season considerably.

The IRA will definitely outlast Blair.

[HannibalBarca]

30. I'm Irish and living in Dublin

Northern Ireland is part of the Island of Ireland and as such in my opinion is Ireland. The Northern situation came into being due to settlers from Scotland and England locating in the North where they were allocated all of the prime real estate and farming land thus tipping the balance away from the Irish nationalists that were the original occupants.
The act of partition that divided Ireland into two provinces was deemed necessary in order to satisfy the Unionists (in the north) and the nationalists in the south although it completely ignored the nationalists in the north who unfortunately suffered much discrimination and worse at the hands of the british security forces;this in part provided the impetus for the creation of the Provisional IRA.
I can tell you that most people in the South have little interest in the North and its various crises that occur every once in a while and I certainly don't hate British people, have some good British friends actually.

[Henny Penny]

36. welcome Hannibal!

and thanx for the history lesson!

Ulster was not too happy to be British in the olden times, and kept rebelling. However after one rebellion too many, the flight of the Earls took place, leaving a political vacuum that the British filled by supplanting the locals with their own people.

And the IRA claim to be the army of the Irish Republic as declared by Dail Eireann in 1919, though I guess you could argue that they have only existed since 1969.

Most people in the South have little interest in the North, but then they have little interest in anything that doesn't affect them personally. Like most people.

[Stella_Artois]

49. It always amuses me

It sometimes seems that its the Americans who had ancestors who came from Ireland that seem to still have a thirst for this old war. The British and the Irish really seem to have put it behind them.

I'm British, and have known a number of Irish through the years. The past really is not an issue. Its history, there's more to be gained in looking to the future than back at the past.

[Henny Penny]

57. To the future!

I think that looking at the past can be useful in terms of "mmm lets not make that mistake again!" but only if it is used to ensure a better future. Not a continuation of the mistakes.

:toast:

[ourbluenation]

52. Just got back from Ireland yesterday and it just seems

ridiculous and impractical that such a tiny Island hosts two governments.

"A nation once again..."

[Tweed]

63. I believe they call that "English"

Yes, ridiculous and impractical is another way of saying "English"

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.