NO DEALS WITH TERRORISTS...

I notice that The Newsletter reports that the DUP and Sinn Fein are locked in a row over law and order which suggests a devolution deal by November 24 is "unlikely".

I would have thought impossible was a more suitable term!

MLAs from the two parties clashed during a meeting of the Preparation for Government Committee which was discussing decommissioning and criminality and paramilitary activity. The argument was sparked when Sinn Fein rejected a series of motions tabled by the DUP supporting the police and renouncing crime. Afterwards, DUP MLA Ian Paisley Jnr said:

"These are the people that want to be in government tomorrow but won't agree to the upholding of the law of the land. This is further proof that republicans remain totally unfit for office and have a lot to do to make themselves fit for ministerial positions."

Ian is right, of course. Sinn Fein/IRA are the antithesis of law and order, so expecting them to endorse the rule of law is akin to expecting a vegetarian to enjoy eating steak tartare! t's just NOT going to happen.

This pathetic political charade is going to play out over the next three months, culminating in a no-show by the November "dead-line"! I am sure that Sinn Fen/IRA and the UK Government will employ all sorts of ploys to try and force the DUP into sharing power with terrorists. They must not do so - and from what I hear, they will not do so.

As you know, unlike the DUP and UUP, I oppose devolution. And I particularly oppose the Provo-friendly model on offer. Finally, the penny will drop that the majority community in Northern Ireland is not going to embrace the concept of having the godfathers of terrorism seated in high office.

Comments

[Reg]

I believe Ian Paisley Junior is unfit for office by virtue of having the IQ of a gnat.

I do not wish to see gnats in government.

[Peter]

I used to be pro-devolution. But the thought of these clowns and gangsters getting their hands on power again now apalls me. Let's hope the talks fail and the idea is buried once and for all.

[David Vance]

Gnats aren't responsible for the deaths of thousands of ordinary people in Northern Ireland, Reg. Or at least not to the best of my knowledge. Provos were.

[iluvni]

On a related note, did you by chance catch the interview with UUPs Alan McFarland on Talkback yesterday?

Complaining that NI's political journalists werent bothering to research and report the wonderful work going on ALL SUMMER between the 5 main parties up at Stormont.

Asked to give us a taster, he refused time and time again. What a clown.

What a waste of time.
Close it down now.

[kloot]

Gnats aren't responsible for the deaths of thousands of ordinary people in Northern Ireland, Reg. Or at least not to the best of my knowledge. Provos were.

Ya might want to refresh your knowledge there then, its a little embarrasing to have to point this out, but your forgetting about the UVF/LVF/UFF.

I wouldnt in anyway condone the violence of the provos, but you might at least try recognise that there were two communities at it!

[Gingganggooliegoolie]

Not to mention the British Army. . .

Or don't they count David?

Did it escape your memory that the majority killed in the troubles were Roman Catholic.

Do your research

[David Vance]

kloot,

Since, as you helpfully point out, you wouldn't condemn the murder and mayhem created by the IRA, you're not worth any time.

Gingganggoolie,

I never mentioned religion, you did. I reiterate the IRA killed THOUSANDS.

[Gingganggoolie]

And what about UVF, UDR, UFF, LVF etc??

What about them David?

David,

Read kloots post again - he said he would not CONDONE what the IRA did.

You owe him an apology.

[kloot]

Since, as you helpfully point out, you wouldn't condemn the murder and mayhem created by the IRA, you're not worth any time.

Ehh.. read my post again. I did the EXACT opposite.

Ill even point out the line
I wouldnt in anyway condone the violence of the provos

Ill take it that you just misread it. No worries there.

I reiterate the IRA killed THOUSANDS.
They did, and again, the UVF/UFF and others have also killed significant numbers of people. Now, do you condone their violence. I suspect not. But at the same time can you bring yourself to acknowledge and condem it.

My only point is that you completely failed to acknowledge the violence from the other community.

[David Vance]

Kloot,

My apologies!

I'm not sure if you have visited here before, if you have you must have seen my numerous posts condemning the UVF, UDA et al. So your point is without substance.

Further, it is the IRA that the Government seeks to put in Ministerial office, that is not the same with their loyalist equivalents. (Unless Reg Empey, the GFA's good friend, wishes to hoist Ervine into office?)

[kloot]

No worries David. I assumed you misread it. No harm done.

if you have you must have seen my numerous posts condemning the UVF, UDA et al
Fair enough. My comments refered to your comment in this instance, which read without past knowledge of your posts, and could easily be read as one sided.

Sometimes I wonder if there is an acceptance that both communities suffered both from the violence inflicted on them by the opposite communities and the violence inflicted from within the communities.

Further, it is the IRA that the Government seeks to put in Ministerial office
I can understand how this must seem a pretty disgusting aspect of the GFA that the unionist community is being asked to swallow. But surely its a case of short term pain for long term stability. A number of world conflicts have had to be resolved through the acceptance of former "terrorists", "freedom fighters" or what ever you want to call them, into the political arena. Surely you can acknowledge the attempt from the republican community to disarm itself and move towards political methods. Yes, their overal aim is still the same, ie a united ireland, but is it not better that its being persued through political means.

And you do have to acknowlege that SF have a substantial mandate.

[kloot]

Anyway, back to the post in question

"I oppose devolution"

"Finally, the penny will drop that the majority community in Northern Ireland is not going to embrace the concept of having the godfathers of terrorism seated in high office."

Fine, and if we then accept that the majority of the nationalist community are pro devolution, based on their support for the GFA, your left with a stalemate.

As an honest question, is there any way out of that stalemate ?

If the two sides are so far apart, can there ever be a compromise ?

David, as a matter of interest, again, im not aware of your past history on this subject as im a new comer, but, are you against all forms of devolution or just the one being pushed at the moment.

[David Vance]

Kloot,

First, thanks for that and sorry for being a bit sharp with you!!

I do despise the UVF, UDA, LVF etc and view them as a complete disgrace. The lives they have shattered and the misery they have caused is appalling. That's why I damn the UUP for hooking up with the PUP.

I do acknowledge the Sinn Fein mandate, though I am sad so many choose to lend their vote to this hydra. That said, the Nazis also had a substantial democratically derived mandate.

I will never accept the idea of Sinn Fein (or the PUP) in Government in any way until they have disbanded, disarmed, apologised in a meaningful manner, and accepted that their violence brought shame on them. If that sounds harsh, I'm sorry. But hey - you did ask me!

[kloot]

That said, the Nazis also had a substantial democratically derived mandate.

Very true.

I will never accept the idea of Sinn Fein (or the PUP) in Government in any way until they have disbanded, disarmed, apologised in a meaningful manner, and accepted that their violence brought shame on them. If that sounds harsh, I'm sorry. But hey - you did ask me!

On the disarming front, even if the IRA announced tomorrow that every weapon they had was now disarmed, I dont think there would ever be any way of proving that it had actually occurred. In my opinion, it was the acceptence that some form of disarming needed to occur was always the problem.

On the disbanding front, this will occur with time you would think. It has in the past.

I would think a meaningful apology is absolutely necessary.

[kloot]

I messed that one up..didnt mean to have the whole thing in italics...

[Submariner]

That's why I damn the UUP for hooking up with the PUP.

What would you thoughts be on the DUPs past alliances with both the UVF/UDA not to mention the Third Force or Ulster resistance and the fact that the DUP also has convicted terrorists in its ranks.

[kloot]

What would you thoughts be on the DUPs past alliances with both the UVF/UDA

Not as close a relationship as the Sinn Fein/IRA, but there all the same.

[aileen]

kloot

"Ya might want to refresh your knowledge there then, its a little embarrasing to have to point this out, but your forgetting about the UVF/LVF/UFF."

Kloot why, when people condemn a terrorist group because that group is under discussion at the time, do so many other people assume that you don't feel the same about the "opposite" bunch of murderers?

Not trying to have a go. It is something that I have never understood.

Welcome to the exended ATW family.

[mahons]

Which sometimes resembles the Manson Family.

[David Vance]

Or the Addams family?
Maybe the Patridge family?

[Alex]

I heard on the news tonight the leader of the Welsh Nationalists, Raudri Morgan, is coming to Belfast on 11 September to tell us of the benefits of devolved government. That is fair enough, I think devolved powers to the local people is a good thing, I am just don't like the idea of having to share that power with a bunch of unrepentent, unreconstructed terrorists and their mouth pieces in Sinn Fein is a good thing.

[kloot]

Cheers for the welcome. Its a facinating site.

Kloot why, when people condemn a terrorist group because that group is under discussion at the time, do so many other people assume that you don't feel the same about the "opposite" bunch of murderers?

I could turn this statement on its head and say, if terrorism in its totality is accepted as being wrong, why single out the one group. Anyway, its a pretty petty arguement that comes down to "this terrorist group was worse then the other".

I just don't like the idea of having to share that power with a bunch of unrepentent, unreconstructed terrorists and their mouth pieces in Sinn Fein is a good thing.

You see, this is a bit of a catch 22 for the Republican community, because they are clearly not trusted by the unionist community. So even if tomorrow morning the full front line of Sinn Fein held a press conference and made a public apology for the last 30 odd years of the troubles, if you were honest with yourself, you would admit that your reaction would be to call this a publicity stunt and to fob it off. You would never believe it nor accept it. Theres no trust there. As seen by the decomissioning acts by the IRA. The unionist community just shrugged them off, not accepting them for what they were. How could they ever convince you that they were repentent if you are unlikely to believe their attempts.

The UUP/DUP for years harped on about the need for the IRA to fully decommission. To such an extent that now when the IRA claims to have fully dumped arms, this is not accepted as being fact by the UUP/DUP. How could the IRA ever convince the unionist community that the weapons were all gone. Again, the trust isnt there.

The real emphasis should have been on the getting the IRA to decommission their mindset for the need for weapons. Weapons decomissioned can always be reattained.

I believe that the only way that the trust will ever build up is by calling their bluff. Watch them working the ministeries/institutions. Watch them defending/supporting/building on a NI government that up until recently was competely unacceptable to them. Surely thats where the trust will build up.

Anyway, thats my 2c on it...hope this doesnt come across as a rant, it isnt meant to. Why oh why am i in work on a sat.

[aileen]

Kloot

"I could turn this statement on its head and say, if terrorism in its totality is accepted as being wrong, why single out the one group. Anyway, its a pretty petty arguement that comes down to "this terrorist group was worse then the other". "

That doesan't deal with the question, as I specified that a group is mentioned because that group is under discussion at the time. You amy as well ask why David has singled ot the UVF on his thread this moring about Empey. The question remains, why assume that the condemnation wouldn't be universal.

"You see, this is a bit of a catch 22 for the Republican community, because they are clearly not trusted by the unionist community. "

It's more that terrorists are not trusted by many non terorists.

"How could they ever convince you that they were repentent if you are unlikely to believe their attempts.
"

Doesn't even come into the question when they show us that they arn't. Repentance would have meant turning in weaponry for forensic examination. Repentance would mean telling what they know, confessing what they have done and giving evidence about what others have done.

"The real emphasis should have been on the getting the IRA to decommission their mindset for the need for weapons. Weapons decomissioned can always be reattained. "

Totally agree. Getting rid of all weapons, even if it was to happen is not evidence of no longer being dangerous but failure to do so is evidence of being so.

"I believe that the only way that the trust will ever build up is by calling their bluff. Watch them working the ministeries/institutions"

Calling thier bluff by further corrupting our society? I'd rather not.

That doesn't even start to meansure up as a rant. You'll have to do better than that! ;o)

Back to work now :o)

[kloot]

It's more that terrorists are not trusted by many non terorists.
I accept that.

Repentance would have meant turning in weaponry for forensic examination. Repentance would mean telling what they know, confessing what they have done and giving evidence about what others have done.
Yeah, while an admirable goal, experience from history and other conflicts across the world, is that this just wont ever happen. Its an unatainable goal. The best that might happen is an admission of guilt for suffering caused. You wont ever get them agreeing to providing information likely to prosecute themselves or others.

Calling thier bluff by further corrupting our society? I'd rather not.

I cant see the alternative. The Unionist community are being asked to engage in something that its clear the majority of people in the south do not and would not agree to, i.e. to go into government with former ( you might debate that word :) ) terrorists. Its a very big request being made on that community. No doubt there.

Looking back at the history of the republic. The civil war, which had to potential to put the country in a state of war for decades to come, was eventually resolved by the acceptance of the Irregulars into to the body politic in much the same way as the unionist community are being asked to accept Sinn Fein in government. There was no love lost between the Irregulars and the free staters. A lot of atrocities committed by both sides. However, it was accepted that it was the only way to resolve the problem and to normalise politics.

Im not saying that the anology is entirely correct, different times, different circumstances and all that. It might have no relevance.

Id be interested in hearing though what you think might be acceptable as a solution. A solution that would realistically run with both communities. Is there one ?

Now, back to trying to get some work done :)