He is a peacemaker at least in the eyes of the people who just want to make the violence stop (and I appreciate that violence is ongoing). At some point there has to be T&R so is the plan for him to come out with the Truth? Too late surely.
So bang him up for a murder 10, 20, 42 years ago? Is that it?
I felt revolted when I read the details of this latest murder but surely at some point it has to stop?
Yes, thats about it. Its not going to be easy. For the politicos who like to define things for the purpose of amnesty. Killing a squaddie or whatever, murder but a conflict killing, terrorists killing other terrorists? Murder but a 'conflict killing'. Squaddie shoots non-combatant with live ammunition, murder but maybe a 'conflict killing'. Probably all get awayable with in the world of grey areas.
Beating, torturing, killing a civilian mother of 10. Murder.
Lets put it this way if I kill someone who killed friends and associates in NI, would I get an amnesty? I mean its directly related to the conflict right? I'd do 2 years if thats all I was risking getting for taking a swathe of them out. But I wouldn't. Why should they?
Let the law take its course.
There's quite a nuance about that, though. Of course I agree but we have a situation whereby we need to move on and to distinguish between any number of different "murders" surely makes the complexity formidable.
The family is suffering terribly and I have absolute sympathy but to start drawing lines between any number of "atrocities" surely gets us nowhere.
The prime architects of the hierarchy of victims concept are Sinn Fein and they are not prepared to let that one go in a hurry. It goes against their self righteous victim mentality.
I think that is a wood-for-trees mentality. From Sinn Fein and perhaps from you. Or from people who ascribe to that.
There needs to be a movement from that thinking and to play the SF game (ha! of course SF = Sinn Fein not SF as you or I might be used to it). From what you say it sounds like Downing St are trying to do that and to understand that that was then and this is now.
How to square the circle of the murder of a mother of 10 god only knows but we either choose to move on or we create exceptions. If Sinn Fein is creating those exceptions there is no reason for us to play along with that.
I don't think there is anything to be gained from prosecuting Gerry Adams for one incident. Isn't it either all or nothing?
He is a peacemaker at least in the eyes of the people who just want to make the violence stop (and I appreciate that violence is ongoing). At some point there has to be T&R so is the plan for him to come out with the Truth? Too late surely.
So bang him up for a murder 10, 20, 42 years ago? Is that it?
I felt revolted when I read the details of this latest murder but surely at some point it has to stop?
Yes, thats about it. Its not going to be easy. For the politicos who like to define things for the purpose of amnesty. Killing a squaddie or whatever, murder but a conflict killing, terrorists killing other terrorists? Murder but a 'conflict killing'. Squaddie shoots non-combatant with live ammunition, murder but maybe a 'conflict killing'. Probably all get awayable with in the world of grey areas.
Beating, torturing, killing a civilian mother of 10. Murder.
Lets put it this way if I kill someone who killed friends and associates in NI, would I get an amnesty? I mean its directly related to the conflict right? I'd do 2 years if thats all I was risking getting for taking a swathe of them out. But I wouldn't. Why should they?
Let the law take its course.
There's quite a nuance about that, though. Of course I agree but we have a situation whereby we need to move on and to distinguish between any number of different "murders" surely makes the complexity formidable.
The family is suffering terribly and I have absolute sympathy but to start drawing lines between any number of "atrocities" surely gets us nowhere.
The prime architects of the hierarchy of victims concept are Sinn Fein and they are not prepared to let that one go in a hurry. It goes against their self righteous victim mentality.
I think that is a wood-for-trees mentality. From Sinn Fein and perhaps from you. Or from people who ascribe to that.
There needs to be a movement from that thinking and to play the SF game (ha! of course SF = Sinn Fein not SF as you or I might be used to it). From what you say it sounds like Downing St are trying to do that and to understand that that was then and this is now.
How to square the circle of the murder of a mother of 10 god only knows but we either choose to move on or we create exceptions. If Sinn Fein is creating those exceptions there is no reason for us to play along with that.
I don't think there is anything to be gained from prosecuting Gerry Adams for one incident. Isn't it either all or nothing?
So what about the other guy charged with the murder. Should he released?
So bang him up for a murder 10, 20, 42 years ago? Is that it?
I felt revolted when I read the details of this latest murder but surely at some point it has to stop?
Yes, thats about it. Its not going to be easy. For the politicos who like to define things for the purpose of amnesty. Killing a squaddie or whatever, murder but a conflict killing, terrorists killing other terrorists? Murder but a 'conflict killing'. Squaddie shoots non-combatant with live ammunition, murder but maybe a 'conflict killing'. Probably all get awayable with in the world of grey areas.
Beating, torturing, killing a civilian mother of 10. Murder.
Lets put it this way if I kill someone who killed friends and associates in NI, would I get an amnesty? I mean its directly related to the conflict right? I'd do 2 years if thats all I was risking getting for taking a swathe of them out. But I wouldn't. Why should they?
Let the law take its course.
There's quite a nuance about that, though. Of course I agree but we have a situation whereby we need to move on and to distinguish between any number of different "murders" surely makes the complexity formidable.
The family is suffering terribly and I have absolute sympathy but to start drawing lines between any number of "atrocities" surely gets us nowhere.
The prime architects of the hierarchy of victims concept are Sinn Fein and they are not prepared to let that one go in a hurry. It goes against their self righteous victim mentality.
I think that is a wood-for-trees mentality. From Sinn Fein and perhaps from you. Or from people who ascribe to that.
There needs to be a movement from that thinking and to play the SF game (ha! of course SF = Sinn Fein not SF as you or I might be used to it). From what you say it sounds like Downing St are trying to do that and to understand that that was then and this is now.
How to square the circle of the murder of a mother of 10 god only knows but we either choose to move on or we create exceptions. If Sinn Fein is creating those exceptions there is no reason for us to play along with that.
I don't think there is anything to be gained from prosecuting Gerry Adams for one incident. Isn't it either all or nothing?
So what about the other guy charged with the murder. Should he released?
Up to 38 dead in Odessa as the unelected Kiev puppet regime orders attack helicopters, tanks and artillery to assault a city in their own country unoccupied but for protesters. Who would have thought overthrowing the democratically elected government would have led to this? Except for anyone with the remotest knowledge of the region. Lines have been crossed and civil war looks inevitable, thanks to Russia Crimeans will be safe.
Extraordinary events our government have conspired in occurring, disgrace abounding.
More of your lies.
They are not protesters but militants, having shot down helicopters:
There's quite a nuance about that, though. Of course I agree but we have a situation whereby we need to move on and to distinguish between any number of different "murders" surely makes the complexity formidable.
The family is suffering terribly and I have absolute sympathy but to start drawing lines between any number of "atrocities" surely gets us nowhere.
The prime architects of the hierarchy of victims concept are Sinn Fein and they are not prepared to let that one go in a hurry. It goes against their self righteous victim mentality.
I think that is a wood-for-trees mentality. From Sinn Fein and perhaps from you. Or from people who ascribe to that.
There needs to be a movement from that thinking and to play the SF game (ha! of course SF = Sinn Fein not SF as you or I might be used to it). From what you say it sounds like Downing St are trying to do that and to understand that that was then and this is now.
How to square the circle of the murder of a mother of 10 god only knows but we either choose to move on or we create exceptions. If Sinn Fein is creating those exceptions there is no reason for us to play along with that.
I don't think there is anything to be gained from prosecuting Gerry Adams for one incident. Isn't it either all or nothing?
So what about the other guy charged with the murder. Should he released?
Yep.
That's the grim reality of moving on.
If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either.
Mr. Y0kel, always interesting to read your posts on matters such as Ukraine.
In more trivial news, I watched Have I Got News For You for the first time in a little while (well, I saw the one Clarkson hosted, which was a good deal funnier, but apart from that haven't seen it for a long while).
Not tremendously amusing. The knocking of UKIP was laboured and unoriginal, and the female guest (Bridget Christie) did a good job of showing why all-male panels are ok.
On the plus side, Agents of SHIELD was good, (not quite on a par with the previous episode or two, but still entertaining).
Up to 38 dead in Odessa as the unelected Kiev puppet regime orders attack helicopters, tanks and artillery to assault a city in their own country unoccupied but for protesters. Who would have thought overthrowing the democratically elected government would have led to this? Except for anyone with the remotest knowledge of the region. Lines have been crossed and civil war looks inevitable, thanks to Russia Crimeans will be safe.
Extraordinary events our government have conspired in occurring, disgrace abounding.
More of your lies.
They are not protesters but militants, having shot down helicopters:
Not lies. Just a different perspective. For example, your claim that the majority of Ukrainians in all regions want to stay part of Ukraine is based on no up to date evidence. No one has conducted any real impartial polling of Ukrainians in the East of the country since before the president was deposed. So claims from both sides about what those people want is based on pure supposition. That goes as much for the pro-Russian claims as the pro-Kiev claims.
"If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either."
That's true but that's realpolitik. It was Adams. The other guy was the other guy. And he wasn't instrumental for better or for worse in bringing about a fragile peace in the Province.
We have a decision to make - do we want to swallow the bitter pill, acknowledge that great injustices and crimes occurred and yet move towards a greater good while understanding that such action will cause great bitterness amongst a large number and yet a minority of people? Or do we want to continue the tit-for-tat?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
"If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either."
That's true but that's realpolitik. It was Adams. The other guy was the other guy. And he wasn't instrumental for better or for worse in bringing about a fragile peace in the Province.
We have a decision to make - do we want to swallow the bitter pill, acknowledge that great injustices and crimes occurred and yet move towards a greater good while understanding that such action will cause great bitterness amongst a large number and yet a minority of people? Or do we want to continue the tit-for-tat?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
"If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either."
That's true but that's realpolitik. It was Adams. The other guy was the other guy. And he wasn't instrumental for better or for worse in bringing about a fragile peace in the Province.
We have a decision to make - do we want to swallow the bitter pill, acknowledge that great injustices and crimes occurred and yet move towards a greater good while understanding that such action will cause great bitterness amongst a large number and yet a minority of people? Or do we want to continue the tit-for-tat?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
"If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either."
That's true but that's realpolitik. It was Adams. The other guy was the other guy. And he wasn't instrumental for better or for worse in bringing about a fragile peace in the Province.
We have a decision to make - do we want to swallow the bitter pill, acknowledge that great injustices and crimes occurred and yet move towards a greater good while understanding that such action will cause great bitterness amongst a large number and yet a minority of people? Or do we want to continue the tit-for-tat?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
Surely the best way to ensure the tit for tat returns is to let Adams walk away from this without a proper trial - if the police/CPS decide they have enough evidence to proceed to a trial. If it becomes clear that Adams was responsible for the murder then I really wouldn't give much for his chances of surviving for long. And would you then say that whoever killed him should be let go for the sake of the peace process?
I am not saying I am happy with where we stand right now and wish fervently that it could be shown that Adams was not involved as that would be the best way for almost everyone. But I am afraid that is not - currently at least - the case.
"If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either."
That's true but that's realpolitik. It was Adams. The other guy was the other guy. And he wasn't instrumental for better or for worse in bringing about a fragile peace in the Province.
We have a decision to make - do we want to swallow the bitter pill, acknowledge that great injustices and crimes occurred and yet move towards a greater good while understanding that such action will cause great bitterness amongst a large number and yet a minority of people? Or do we want to continue the tit-for-tat?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
I have just walked past Liverpool St and didn't think to pop in. Hope all had a good night. Freezing cold in London this evening, not great for those of us who still smoke ;-)
"Schools across Britain are likely to have been targeted in an alleged Islamist plot to take over classrooms, head teachers have warned. The National Association of Head Teachers said it had found “concerted efforts” to infiltrate at least six schools in Birmingham. But the union also said that the scandal had “connections” to other large cities. The Telegraph understands that there are growing concerns about the possible infiltration of schools in Bradford, Manchester and parts of east London."
"If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either."
That's true but that's realpolitik. It was Adams. The other guy was the other guy. And he wasn't instrumental for better or for worse in bringing about a fragile peace in the Province.
We have a decision to make - do we want to swallow the bitter pill, acknowledge that great injustices and crimes occurred and yet move towards a greater good while understanding that such action will cause great bitterness amongst a large number and yet a minority of people? Or do we want to continue the tit-for-tat?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
Surely the best way to ensure the tit for tat returns is to let Adams walk away from this without a proper trial - if the police/CPS decide they have enough evidence to proceed to a trial. If it becomes clear that Adams was responsible for the murder then I really wouldn't give much for his chances of surviving for long. And would you then say that whoever killed him should be let go for the sake of the peace process?
I am not saying I am happy with where we stand right now and wish fervently that it could be shown that Adams was not involved as that would be the best way for almost everyone. But I am afraid that is not - currently at least - the case.
Thing is, everyone knew and knows who the players are. We are beyond that. We are at the point whereby we (Y0kel: that means the UK) have to sit down with people who are unpalatable and try to do business with them.
As I said, either we acknowledge that atrocities were committed and we move on with a lingering sense of injustice on both sides or we acknowledge that atrocities were committed and continue the fight.
Both are fine but Op Banner ended some years ago and if we want to go back to that then that IMO would be a mistake.
It needs compromise but I believe that the people of NI would rather have peace than war on a point of principle.
"If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either."
That's true but that's realpolitik. It was Adams. The other guy was the other guy. And he wasn't instrumental for better or for worse in bringing about a fragile peace in the Province.
We have a decision to make - do we want to swallow the bitter pill, acknowledge that great injustices and crimes occurred and yet move towards a greater good while understanding that such action will cause great bitterness amongst a large number and yet a minority of people? Or do we want to continue the tit-for-tat?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
I disagree and perhaps that's where we should call it a day.
It is transparent that the struggle is not containable because look at the McConville family - they still dare not or are worried about naming names.
It was never containable. Northern Ireland isn't a special case. It is a case where special circumstances prevailed and to a certain extent still prevail.
It was always my contention that if the people on the mainland knew of what HMF were doing in NI during Op Banner they would have been shocked. I don't think that period was great for HMF (it certainly lead them into a false set of assumptions for Herrick or Telic) or, most importantly, for the people of NI.
If you don't want to forgive and forget and you want to nab the baddies then we are back to the bad old days. It sounds like you live in NI in which case it is your prerogative to want just that.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
It's more complicated than that though. The south and east was added to Ukraine in 1922 by the Soviet government so there are Ukrainian-Ukrainians (mostly in the west) Ukrainian-Russians (from 1922 and mostly in the south and east) and Russian-Ukrainians (more recent arrivals mostly in the industrial areas of the east).
The key factor is how that 1922 group feel. Before the coup in Kiev they voted for the more pro-Russian faction within a united Ukraine but after the coup they may have changed their mind. My guess is they have been sliding towards Russia but impossible to say for sure.
Elected by Ukrainian politicians, hmmmm, not an accreditation I would want. I am actually friends with a daughter of a former Ukrainian politician, her father is wanted by the FBI, and very much so, albeit given protection in Putin's Russia. That is ignoring the pressure the parliament was put under when the vote was carried out. Funny how the new government is actually that outlined by Victoria Nudelman-Kagan in her recorded conversation.
Anyway the Ukrainian army seems reluctant to carry out orders.
"If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either."
That's true but that's realpolitik. It was Adams. The other guy was the other guy. And he wasn't instrumental for better or for worse in bringing about a fragile peace in the Province.
We have a decision to make - do we want to swallow the bitter pill, acknowledge that great injustices and crimes occurred and yet move towards a greater good while understanding that such action will cause great bitterness amongst a large number and yet a minority of people? Or do we want to continue the tit-for-tat?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
I disagree and perhaps that's where we should call it a day.
It is transparent that the struggle is not containable because look at the McConville family - they still dare not or are worried about naming names.
It was never containable. Northern Ireland isn't a special case. It is a case where special circumstances prevailed and to a certain extent still prevail.
It was always my contention that if the people on the mainland knew of what HMF were doing in NI during Op Banner they would have been shocked. I don't think that period was great for HMF (it certainly lead them into a false set of assumptions for Herrick or Telic) or, most importantly, for the people of NI.
If you don't want to forgive and forget and you want to nab the baddies then we are back to the bad old days. It sounds like you live in NI in which case it is your prerogative to want just that.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
It's organised crime hiding behind a cause, nothing more and nothing less.
"If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either."
That's true but that's realpolitik. It was Adams. The other guy was the other guy. And he wasn't instrumental for better or for worse in bringing about a fragile peace in the Province.
We have a decision to make - do we want to swallow the bitter pill, acknowledge that great injustices and crimes occurred and yet move towards a greater good while understanding that such action will cause great bitterness amongst a large number and yet a minority of people? Or do we want to continue the tit-for-tat?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
I disagree and perhaps that's where we should call it a day.
It is transparent that the struggle is not containable because look at the McConville family - they still dare not or are worried about naming names.
It was never containable. Northern Ireland isn't a special case. It is a case where special circumstances prevailed and to a certain extent still prevail.
It was always my contention that if the people on the mainland knew of what HMF were doing in NI during Op Banner they would have been shocked. I don't think that period was great for HMF (it certainly lead them into a false set of assumptions for Herrick or Telic) or, most importantly, for the people of NI.
If you don't want to forgive and forget and you want to nab the baddies then we are back to the bad old days. It sounds like you live in NI in which case it is your prerogative to want just that.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
It's organised crime hiding behind a cause, nothing more and nothing less.
obviously not too familiar with "the Troubles" are you?
"If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either."
That's true but that's realpolitik. It was Adams. The other guy was the other guy. And he wasn't instrumental for better or for worse in bringing about a fragile peace in the Province.
We have a decision to make - do we want to swallow the bitter pill, acknowledge that great injustices and crimes occurred and yet move towards a greater good while understanding that such action will cause great bitterness amongst a large number and yet a minority of people? Or do we want to continue the tit-for-tat?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
I disagree and perhaps that's where we should call it a day.
It is transparent that the struggle is not containable because look at the McConville family - they still dare not or are worried about naming names.
It was never containable. Northern Ireland isn't a special case. It is a case where special circumstances prevailed and to a certain extent still prevail.
It was always my contention that if the people on the mainland knew of what HMF were doing in NI during Op Banner they would have been shocked. I don't think that period was great for HMF (it certainly lead them into a false set of assumptions for Herrick or Telic) or, most importantly, for the people of NI.
If you don't want to forgive and forget and you want to nab the baddies then we are back to the bad old days. It sounds like you live in NI in which case it is your prerogative to want just that.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
If it wasn't contained the Provos wouldn't have come to the table. They came to the table because they couldn't get what they want. That is exactly what counter-insurgency aims to do.
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
I disagree and perhaps that's where we should call it a day.
It is transparent that the struggle is not containable because look at the McConville family - they still dare not or are worried about naming names.
It was never containable. Northern Ireland isn't a special case. It is a case where special circumstances prevailed and to a certain extent still prevail.
It was always my contention that if the people on the mainland knew of what HMF were doing in NI during Op Banner they would have been shocked. I don't think that period was great for HMF (it certainly lead them into a false set of assumptions for Herrick or Telic) or, most importantly, for the people of NI.
If you don't want to forgive and forget and you want to nab the baddies then we are back to the bad old days. It sounds like you live in NI in which case it is your prerogative to want just that.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
If it wasn't contained the Provos wouldn't have come to the table. They came to the table because they couldn't get what they want. That is exactly what counter-insurgency aims to do.
Yes, I agree. We won.
But...look at the legacy groups now operating. For some unfathomable reason there continue to be groups who want to continue the struggle. Gerry Adams (and Martin McG) cut out much of that so that the remaining groups are fragmented and less well organised (you I'm sure know far more about them than I). But these latter groups persist.
Are you really saying that you want to issue a further rallying cry to unite those groups by going after the people who have, to the public at least, renounced violence and embraced some kind of democracy?
It's a shame we weren't both at Dirty Dicks tonight because I think it would have been interesting to have a discussion about this although I appreciate that my perspective is one of outsider rather than one whose daily reality it is.
Not lies. Just a different perspective. For example, your claim that the majority of Ukrainians in all regions want to stay part of Ukraine is based on no up to date evidence. No one has conducted any real impartial polling of Ukrainians in the East of the country since before the president was deposed. So claims from both sides about what those people want is based on pure supposition. That goes as much for the pro-Russian claims as the pro-Kiev claims.
Not true at all. Both the polls mentioned in the New Republic article I linked were after the deposition of Yanukovych and after Russian troops entered the country.
"If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either."
That's true but that's realpolitik. It was Adams. The other guy was the other guy. And he wasn't instrumental for better or for worse in bringing about a fragile peace in the Province.
We have a decision to make - do we want to swallow the bitter pill, acknowledge that great injustices and crimes occurred and yet move towards a greater good while understanding that such action will cause great bitterness amongst a large number and yet a minority of people? Or do we want to continue the tit-for-tat?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
I disagree and perhaps that's where we should call it a day.
It is transparent that the struggle is not containable because look at the McConville family - they still dare not or are worried about naming names.
It was never containable. Northern Ireland isn't a special case. It is a case where special circumstances prevailed and to a certain extent still prevail.
It was always my contention that if the people on the mainland knew of what HMF were doing in NI during Op Banner they would have been shocked. I don't think that period was great for HMF (it certainly lead them into a false set of assumptions for Herrick or Telic) or, most importantly, for the people of NI.
If you don't want to forgive and forget and you want to nab the baddies then we are back to the bad old days. It sounds like you live in NI in which case it is your prerogative to want just that.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
It's organised crime hiding behind a cause, nothing more and nothing less.
obviously not too familiar with "the Troubles" are you?
"If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either."
That's true but that's realpolitik. It was Adams. The other guy was the other guy. And he wasn't instrumental for better or for worse in bringing about a fragile peace in the Province.
We have a decision to make - do we want to swallow the bitter pill, acknowledge that great injustices and crimes occurred and yet move towards a greater good while understanding that such action will cause great bitterness amongst a large number and yet a minority of people? Or do we want to continue the tit-for-tat?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
I disagree and perhaps that's where we should call it a day.
It is transparent that the struggle is not containable because look at the McConville family - they still dare not or are worried about naming names.
It was never containable. Northern Ireland isn't a special case. It is a case where special circumstances prevailed and to a certain extent still prevail.
It was always my contention that if the people on the mainland knew of what HMF were doing in NI during Op Banner they would have been shocked. I don't think that period was great for HMF (it certainly lead them into a false set of assumptions for Herrick or Telic) or, most importantly, for the people of NI.
If you don't want to forgive and forget and you want to nab the baddies then we are back to the bad old days. It sounds like you live in NI in which case it is your prerogative to want just that.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
It's organised crime hiding behind a cause, nothing more and nothing less.
obviously not too familiar with "the Troubles" are you?
probably more familiar than you are these days.
Probably. But we are talking about events 42 years ago. I reckon I outrank Nigel on knowledge of the preceeding few decades.
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
I disagree and perhaps that's where we should call it a day.
It is transparent that the struggle is not containable because look at the McConville family - they still dare not or are worried about naming names.
It was never containable. Northern Ireland isn't a special case. It is a case where special circumstances prevailed and to a certain extent still prevail.
It was always my contention that if the people on the mainland knew of what HMF were doing in NI during Op Banner they would have been shocked. I don't think that period was great for HMF (it certainly lead them into a false set of assumptions for Herrick or Telic) or, most importantly, for the people of NI.
If you don't want to forgive and forget and you want to nab the baddies then we are back to the bad old days. It sounds like you live in NI in which case it is your prerogative to want just that.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
If it wasn't contained the Provos wouldn't have come to the table. They came to the table because they couldn't get what they want. That is exactly what counter-insurgency aims to do.
Yes, I agree. We won.
But...look at the legacy groups now operating. For some unfathomable reason there continue to be groups who want to continue the struggle. Gerry Adams (and Martin McG) cut out much of that so that the remaining groups are fragmented and less well organised (you I'm sure know far more about them than I). But these latter groups persist.
Are you really saying that you want to issue a further rallying cry to unite those groups by going after the people who have, to the public at least, renounced violence and embraced some kind of democracy?
It's a shame we weren't both at Dirty Dicks tonight because I think it would have been interesting to have a discussion about this although I appreciate that my perspective is one of outsider rather than one whose daily reality it is.
Why would this be a rallying cry for them? They can't stand Adams, he sold out.
"If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either."
That's true but that's realpolitik. It was Adams. The other guy was the other guy. And he wasn't instrumental for better or for worse in bringing about a fragile peace in the Province.
We have a decision to make - do we want to swallow the bitter pill, acknowledge that great injustices and crimes occurred and yet move towards a greater good while understanding that such action will cause great bitterness amongst a large number and yet a minority of people? Or do we want to continue the tit-for-tat?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
I disagree and perhaps that's where we should call it a day.
It is transparent that the struggle is not containable because look at the McConville family - they still dare not or are worried about naming names.
It was never containable. Northern Ireland isn't a special case. It is a case where special circumstances prevailed and to a certain extent still prevail.
If you don't want to forgive and forget and you want to nab the baddies then we are back to the bad old days. It sounds like you live in NI in which case it is your prerogative to want just that.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
It's organised crime hiding behind a cause, nothing more and nothing less.
obviously not too familiar with "the Troubles" are you?
probably more familiar than you are these days.
Probably. But we are talking about events 42 years ago. I reckon I outrank Nigel on knowledge of the preceeding few decades.
If you want bygones to be bygones then it has to apply to both sides . SF want their casualties to remain special everyone else says law and order has to apply. Why should one group be above the law ?
Your source is a blog from a guy who believes African Americans have poor moral judgment and need strict moral guidance from the rest of society - enough to be considered racist by the National Review. Credible.
"If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either."
That's true but that's realpolitik. It was Adams. The other guy was the other guy. And he wasn't instrumental for better or for worse in bringing about a fragile peace in the Province.
We have a decision to make - do we want to swallow the bitter pill, acknowledge that great injustices and crimes occurred and yet move towards a greater good while understanding that such action will cause great bitterness amongst a large number and yet a minority of people? Or do we want to continue the tit-for-tat?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
I disagree and perhaps that's where we should call it a day.
It is transparent that the struggle is not containable because look at the McConville family - they still dare not or are worried about naming names.
It was never containable. Northern Ireland isn't a special case. It is a case where special circumstances prevailed and to a certain extent still prevail.
It was always my contention that if the people on the mainland knew of what HMF were doing in NI during Op Banner they would have been shocked. I don't think that period was great for HMF (it certainly lead them into a false set of assumptions for Herrick or Telic) or, most importantly, for the people of NI.
If you don't want to forgive and forget and you want to nab the baddies then we are back to the bad old days. It sounds like you live in NI in which case it is your prerogative to want just that.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
It's organised crime hiding behind a cause, nothing more and nothing less.
obviously not too familiar with "the Troubles" are you?
Familiar enough to have lost a loved one serving out there.
And because this happened 42 years ago why do you assume you outrank me?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
It was always my contention that if the people on the mainland knew of what HMF were doing in NI during Op Banner they would have been shocked. I don't think that period was great for HMF (it certainly lead them into a false set of assumptions for Herrick or Telic) or, most importantly, for the people of NI.
If you don't want to forgive and forget and you want to nab the baddies then we are back to the bad old days. It sounds like you live in NI in which case it is your prerogative to want just that.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
If it wasn't contained the Provos wouldn't have come to the table. They came to the table because they couldn't get what they want. That is exactly what counter-insurgency aims to do.
Yes, I agree. We won.
But...look at the legacy groups now operating. For some unfathomable reason there continue to be groups who want to continue the struggle. Gerry Adams (and Martin McG) cut out much of that so that the remaining groups are fragmented and less well organised (you I'm sure know far more about them than I). But these latter groups persist.
Are you really saying that you want to issue a further rallying cry to unite those groups by going after the people who have, to the public at least, renounced violence and embraced some kind of democracy?
It's a shame we weren't both at Dirty Dicks tonight because I think it would have been interesting to have a discussion about this although I appreciate that my perspective is one of outsider rather than one whose daily reality it is.
Why would this be a rallying cry for them? They can't stand Adams, he sold out.
Isn't that proving my point? They want to continue the struggle so we re-martyrise someone who they thought had sold them out? You said yourself about the murals.
But...look at the legacy groups now operating. For some unfathomable reason there continue to be groups who want to continue the struggle. Gerry Adams (and Martin McG) cut out much of that so that the remaining groups are fragmented and less well organised (you I'm sure know far more about them than I). But these latter groups persist.
Are you really saying that you want to issue a further rallying cry to unite those groups by going after the people who have, to the public at least, renounced violence and embraced some kind of democracy?
It's a shame we weren't both at Dirty Dicks tonight because I think it would have been interesting to have a discussion about this although I appreciate that my perspective is one of outsider rather than one whose daily reality it is.
Why would this be a rallying cry for them? They can't stand Adams, he sold out.
Isn't that proving my point? They want to continue the struggle so we re-martyrise someone who they thought had sold them out? You said yourself about the murals.
It won't make a difference to them AT ALL whether Gerry swings or goes free. It does not come into their calculations. You completely over estimate this man's importance to the dissident movement.
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
It was always my contention that if the people on the mainland knew of what HMF were doing in NI during Op Banner they would have been shocked. I don't think that period was great for HMF (it certainly lead them into a false set of assumptions for Herrick or Telic) or, most importantly, for the people of NI.
If you don't want to forgive and forget and you want to nab the baddies then we are back to the bad old days. It sounds like you live in NI in which case it is your prerogative to want just that.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
If it wasn't contained the Provos wouldn't have come to the table. They came to the table because they couldn't get what they want. That is exactly what counter-insurgency aims to do.
Yes, I agree. We won.
But...look at the legacy groups now operating. For some unfathomable reason there continue to be groups who want to continue the struggle. Gerry Adams (and Martin McG) cut out much of that so that the remaining groups are fragmented and less well organised (you I'm sure know far more about them than I). But these latter groups persist.
Are you really saying that you want to issue a further rallying cry to unite those groups by going after the people who have, to the public at least, renounced violence and embraced some kind of democracy?
It's a shame we weren't both at Dirty Dicks tonight because I think it would have been interesting to have a discussion about this although I appreciate that my perspective is one of outsider rather than one whose daily reality it is.
Why would this be a rallying cry for them? They can't stand Adams, he sold out.
Isn't that proving my point? They want to continue the struggle so we re-martyrise someone who they thought had sold them out? You said yourself about the murals.
So would you let Abu Hamza back in the country ? I mean it would stop him being a martyr.
It won't make a difference to them AT ALL whether Gerry swings or goes free. It does not come into their calculations. You completely over estimate this man's importance to the dissident movement.
It won't make a difference to them AT ALL whether Gerry swings or goes free. It does not come into their calculations. You completely over estimate this man's importance to the dissident movement.
ason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
I disagree and perhaps that's where we should call it a day.
It is transparent that the struggle is not containable because look at the McConville family - they still dare not or are worried about naming names.
It was never containable. Northern Ireland isn't a special case. It is a case where special circumstances prevailed and to a certain extent still prevail.
If you don't want to forgive and forget and you want to nab the baddies then we are back to the bad old days. It sounds like you live in NI in which case it is your prerogative to want just that.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
It's organised crime hiding behind a cause, nothing more and nothing less.
obviously not too familiar with "the Troubles" are you?
probably more familiar than you are these days.
Probably. But we are talking about events 42 years ago. I reckon I outrank Nigel on knowledge of the preceeding few decades.
If you want bygones to be bygones then it has to apply to both sides . SF want their casualties to remain special everyone else says law and order has to apply. Why should one group be above the law ?
I want peace. The reality is that ugly compromises have to be made, as we have already seen with the GFA. It doesn't please anyone but someone has to make a bold step. Gerry Adams has been the face of that bold step, regardless of the reality, and so we (= UK) say to him - you know all that effort you have been making, you know the fact that you have sold out...well it counted for nothing. We're going to nick you for something we know you did decades ago. And oh yes we knew decades ago you did it but now we think we have the evidence.
I'm sorry. Either we are entering a new era in NI or we aren't. Two soldiers were killed ordering pizza recently. There are any number of violent crimes daily. But we want to re-ignite the bad old days by ignoring someone who has renounced, in their public pronouncements, violence. And you applaud.
Elected by Ukrainian politicians, hmmmm, not an accreditation I would want. I am actually friends with a daughter of a former Ukrainian politician, her father is wanted by the FBI, and very much so, albeit given protection in Putin's Russia. That is ignoring the pressure the parliament was put under when the vote was carried out. Funny how the new government is actually that outlined by Victoria Nudelman-Kagan in her recorded conversation.
Anyway the Ukrainian army seems reluctant to carry out orders.
The only pressure the parliament was under was the disgust of the Ukrainian people, after the butcher Yanukovych had unarmed protesters shot dead on the streets of Kiev. Unless you of course have a credible source to suggest otherwise?
Deary me, Sinn Fein firing out the threats if the Adams arrest is not 'addressed in a satisfactory manner', ie he is released forthwith.
They are too far down the track to revert for long.
If the law is going to be enforced, then section 32A(1) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 may be of use:
A person commits an offence if, with the intention of perverting the course of justice, he seeks to influence the Director [of Public Prosecutions], the Deputy Director or a Public Prosecutor in any decision as to whether to institute or continue criminal proceedings.
The maximum penalty on conviction on indictment is five years and an unlimited fine. Also consider the judgment of Mr Justice McCardie in the English case of Fisher v Oldham Corportation [1930] 2 KB 364, at 372-373, which is persuasive precedent in the province:
Suppose that a police officer arrested a man for a serious felony? Suppose, too, that the watch committee of the borough at once passed a resolution directing that the felon should be released? Of what value would such a resolution be? Not only would it be the plain duty of the police officer to disregard the resolution, but it would also be the duty of the chief constable to consider whether an information should not at once be laid against the members of the watch committee for a conspiracy to obstruct the course of criminal justice.
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
Yes, I agree. We won.
It's a shame we weren't both at Dirty Dicks tonight because I think it would have been interesting to have a discussion about this although I appreciate that my perspective is one of outsider rather than one whose daily reality it is.
Why would this be a rallying cry for them? They can't stand Adams, he sold out.
Isn't that proving my point? They want to continue the struggle so we re-martyrise someone who they thought had sold them out? You said yourself about the murals.
So would you let Abu Hamza back in the country ? I mean it would stop him being a martyr.
Do you think the war in Afghan can be won by force or do you think we will have to talk to the Taliban?
Oh, and I love how FalseFlag calls Victoria Nuland by her family's historic "Nudelman" surname, rather than her actual name. A quick web search reveals this is being done by far right white supremacist websites. I'm sure it's only coincedental that the name you're choosing to use for her is Jewish...
It won't make a difference to them AT ALL whether Gerry swings or goes free. It does not come into their calculations. You completely over estimate this man's importance to the dissident movement.
Fine. Then we can ignore Gerry Adams, bang him up for murder 42 years ago, when he was undoubtedly involved in the republican movement, ignore his attempts at pursuing a peaceful path to his political aims and so now we have to deal with the dissident movement. And they can see what happens if they decide to drop the armed struggle, get close to political power; they get arrested for something they did decades ago.
Unless of course you see them as what was it Nigel said, "organised crime"?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
Yes, I agree. We won.
It's a shame we weren't both at Dirty Dicks tonight because I think it would have been interesting to have a discussion about this although I appreciate that my perspective is one of outsider rather than one whose daily reality it is.
Why would this be a rallying cry for them? They can't stand Adams, he sold out.
Isn't that proving my point? They want to continue the struggle so we re-martyrise someone who they thought had sold them out? You said yourself about the murals.
So would you let Abu Hamza back in the country ? I mean it would stop him being a martyr.
Do you think the war in Afghan can be won by force or do you think we will have to talk to the Taliban?
We should never have been in Afghanistan to begin with, totally different circumstance to those effecting terrorism on UK soil
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
Yes, I agree. We won.
It's a shame we weren't both at Dirty Dicks tonight because I think it would have been interesting to have a discussion about this although I appreciate that my perspective is one of outsider rather than one whose daily reality it is.
Why would this be a rallying cry for them? They can't stand Adams, he sold out.
Isn't that proving my point? They want to continue the struggle so we re-martyrise someone who they thought had sold them out? You said yourself about the murals.
So would you let Abu Hamza back in the country ? I mean it would stop him being a martyr.
Do you think the war in Afghan can be won by force or do you think we will have to talk to the Taliban?
We should never have been in Afghanistan to begin with, totally different circumstance to those effecting terrorism on UK soil
An "I wouldn't have started from there" response. Ha!
But hold on...I thought the presence of AQ in Afghan had a direct effect on terrorism on UK soil but regardless, we are talking about terrorism and my question remains: do you think you can solve a terrorist problem (this time in Afghan) without talking to the terrorists?
Not really. You just have a southern view where other people's lives are worth less than your own. You'd be quite happy to pursue the killers of PC Yvonne Fletcher or the guys behind the 7/7 murders rather than let bygones be bygones ; in the words of Jake Burns "green wogs" don't count for you since it's not your community. However as Y0kel has pointed out your analysis of NI is wrong in any case. Most people have already moved on and have no wish to go back to the bad old days and the Adams incident however it plays out is actually a positive sign of normality and the rule of law re-applying. If the community is going to have the same normality as every where else the writ of law has to apply. And as we've seen with Mr Clifford 42 years for a crime is nothing.
It won't make a difference to them AT ALL whether Gerry swings or goes free. It does not come into their calculations. You completely over estimate this man's importance to the dissident movement.
Fine. Then we can ignore Gerry Adams, bang him up for murder 42 years ago, when he was undoubtedly involved in the republican movement, ignore his attempts at pursuing a peaceful path to his political aims and so now we have to deal with the dissident movement. And they can see what happens if they decide to drop the armed struggle, get close to political power; they get arrested for something they did decades ago.
Unless of course you see them as what was it Nigel said, "organised crime"?
Tell me Topping, how did the IRA raise funds, and the Loyalists for that matter?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
Yes, I agree. We won.
It's a shame we weren't both at Dirty Dicks tonight because I think it would have been interesting to have a discussion about this although I appreciate that my perspective is one of outsider rather than one whose daily reality it is.
Why would this be a rallying cry for them? They can't stand Adams, he sold out.
Isn't that proving my point? They want to continue the struggle so we re-martyrise someone who they thought had sold them out? You said yourself about the murals.
So would you let Abu Hamza back in the country ? I mean it would stop him being a martyr.
Do you think the war in Afghan can be won by force or do you think we will have to talk to the Taliban?
We should never have been in Afghanistan to begin with, totally different circumstance to those effecting terrorism on UK soil
An "I wouldn't have started from there" response. Ha!
But hold on...I thought the presence of AQ in Afghan had a direct effect on terrorism on UK soil but regardless, we are talking about terrorism and my question remains: do you think you can solve a terrorist problem (this time in Afghan) without talking to the terrorists?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
Yes, I agree. We won.
It's a shame we weren't both at Dirty Dicks tonight because I think it would have been interesting to have a discussion about this although I appreciate that my perspective is one of outsider rather than one whose daily reality it is.
Why would this be a rallying cry for them? They can't stand Adams, he sold out.
Isn't that proving my point? They want to continue the struggle so we re-martyrise someone who they thought had sold them out? You said yourself about the murals.
So would you let Abu Hamza back in the country ? I mean it would stop him being a martyr.
Do you think the war in Afghan can be won by force or do you think we will have to talk to the Taliban?
The UK has lost the war against the Taliban. It won the war against the Provos and you only get peace from settling with your enemies. That peace was through the GFA and the aim was to return to a normal society as per the rest of the British Isles. In a normal society law applies and you don't get a hospital pass for murder. As was clear from recent events the Provos negotiated amnesties, if Adams didn't do it for himself well that's bad planning, but the law is the law, that's how civilised societies work.
Not really. You just have a southern view where other people's lives are worth less than your own. You'd be quite happy to pursue the killers of PC Yvonne Fletcher or the guys behind the 7/7 murders rather than let bygones be bygones ; in the words of Jake Burns "green wogs" don't count for you since it's not your community. However as Y0kel has pointed out your analysis of NI is wrong in any case. Most people have already moved on and have no wish to go back to the bad old days and the Adams incident however it plays out is actually a positive sign of normality and the rule of law re-applying. If the community is going to have the same normality as every where else the writ of law has to apply. And as we've seen with Mr Clifford 42 years for a crime is nothing.
Nope. Untypically for you, that is hugely naive. You are saying that the UK Govt engaged with Gerry Adams and MMcG for years and then all of a sudden it emerged that they had links with...terrorism!! Very funny.
"Most people" have always wanted to live their lives in peace in NI. We are not talking about "most people". You and Y0kel seem to be at cross purposes. For him Gerry Adams is irrelevant to the "dissidents". You meanwhile seem to think that the law should apply to "dissidents", of which Gerry Adams is one.
You can't have it both ways. Gerry Adams by all accounts (!) was a dissident, there was an almost textbook reconciliation process whereby he was brought into government and now you say forget all that let's look at the crimes he committed beforehand.
So either he is irrelevant to the "dissidents" or he is or was a "dissident".
So now you have Twitter accounts in addition to random blogs? You are a anti-Semitic propagandist, and are apparently alien enough from the British cultural context not to realise that someone's Jewish descent doesn't discredit someone in the UK.
It won't make a difference to them AT ALL whether Gerry swings or goes free. It does not come into their calculations. You completely over estimate this man's importance to the dissident movement.
Fine. Then we can ignore Gerry Adams, bang him up for murder 42 years ago, when he was undoubtedly involved in the republican movement, ignore his attempts at pursuing a peaceful path to his political aims and so now we have to deal with the dissident movement. And they can see what happens if they decide to drop the armed struggle, get close to political power; they get arrested for something they did decades ago.
Unless of course you see them as what was it Nigel said, "organised crime"?
You have a poor understanding of irish dissidents. You have as much chance of negotiating a peaceful settlement with them as you do with islamic extremists in the England.
They fall in to two categories : organised crime hiding behind "the cause"; blinkered nutters who don't like compromise.
Unless of course you see them as what was it Nigel said, "organised crime"?
Of course it was organised crime. The IRA were an organised criminal enterprise. Their criminality may have had political motives, but it is intent, not motive, which counts in crime. As Lord Justice Sachs said in R v Caird (1970) 54 Criminal Appeal Reports 499, at 506:
When there is wanton and vicious violence of gross degree the Court is not concerned with whether it originates from gang rivalry or from political motives. It is the degree of mob violence that matters and the extent to which the public peace is being broken.
If anything, a political motive aggravates an offence, rather than providing exculpation or mitigation. The law should be enforced to the fullest extent that is consistent with the concessions we made in 1998.
"The UK has lost the war against the Taliban. It won the war against the Provos and you only get peace from settling with your enemies. That peace was through the GFA and the aim was to return to a normal society as per the rest of the British Isles. In a normal society law applies and you don't get a hospital pass for murder. As was clear from recent events the Provos negotiated amnesties, if Adams didn't do it for himself well that's bad planning, but the law is the law, that's how civilised societies work."
You are getting closer. I'm glad I didn't lose all faith in your reasoning.
Yes, the peace was through the GFA but on the basis that manifestly NI was not a "normal society" then yes, in this instance and no matter how unpalatable, you _do_ get a hospital pass for murder (btw "hospital pass" means a bad thing not a good thing).
That's exactly the point.
You say that "Adams didn't do it for himself" but he had every right to believe that the UK Govt would accept it as understood that he had immunity because despite his apparent peripheral and irrelevant position in PIRA (as Y0kel might have it), he was the person who could make things happen or not happen.
That is the issue and that is why I think UK Govt or PSNI has made a mistake.
It won't make a difference to them AT ALL whether Gerry swings or goes free. It does not come into their calculations. You completely over estimate this man's importance to the dissident movement.
Fine. Then we can ignore Gerry Adams, bang him up for murder 42 years ago, when he was undoubtedly involved in the republican movement, ignore his attempts at pursuing a peaceful path to his political aims and so now we have to deal with the dissident movement. And they can see what happens if they decide to drop the armed struggle, get close to political power; they get arrested for something they did decades ago.
Unless of course you see them as what was it Nigel said, "organised crime"?
Normalisation is ultimately about the law taking its course without politics getting in the way. Most people in NI want normalisation. They don't want loyalist or republican paramilitaries getting the benefits of violence. You will not get the equality that so many crave until that equality extends to application of the law.
People in NI accepted compromises, they had to swallow early releases of those who killed friends families and associates, they had to swallow people who were dedicated to terrorising their communities mysteriously becoming community workers funded by government yet still carrying the threat to sort people out.
That, whether you know it or not, is exactly how it is in NI. Maybe not in the leafy suburbs (the troubles didn't reach sections of the country to any great effect) but it exists in the working class communities most affected by violence and its legacy. What you haven't seen is that the cops have a welter of investigations on paramilitaries on both sides. The UVF, who lest we forget, also decided on going the peace process route and burying the guns (apparently) is facing a near existential threat. Senior republicans who used the cover of their power during the troubles to abuse children are also on the list of things being investigated.
Drop it all then?
Are people afraid of a return to conflict? Yes they are but less afraid than many people outside the country seem to be.
Unless of course you see them as what was it Nigel said, "organised crime"?
Of course it was organised crime. The IRA were an organised criminal enterprise. Their criminality may have had political motives, but it is intent, not motive, which counts in crime. As Lord Justice Sachs said in R v Caird (1970) 54 Criminal Appeal Reports 499, at 506:
When there is wanton and vicious violence of gross degree the Court is not concerned with whether it originates from gang rivalry or from political motives. It is the degree of mob violence that matters and the extent to which the public peace is being broken.
If anything, a political motive aggravates an offence, rather than providing exculpation or mitigation. The law should be enforced to the fullest extent that is consistent with the concessions we made in 1998.
Are the Taliban "organised criminals"? Any politics or religion in there at all?
Not really. You just have a southern view where other people's lives are worth less than your own. You'd be quite happy to pursue the killers of PC Yvonne Fletcher or the guys behind the 7/7 murders rather than let bygones be bygones ; in the words of Jake Burns "green wogs" don't count for you since it's not your community. However as Y0kel has pointed out your analysis of NI is wrong in any case. Most people have already moved on and have no wish to go back to the bad old days and the Adams incident however it plays out is actually a positive sign of normality and the rule of law re-applying. If the community is going to have the same normality as every where else the writ of law has to apply. And as we've seen with Mr Clifford 42 years for a crime is nothing.
Nope. Untypically for you, that is hugely naive. You are saying that the UK Govt engaged with Gerry Adams and MMcG for years and then all of a sudden it emerged that they had links with...terrorism!! Very funny.
"Most people" have always wanted to live their lives in peace in NI. We are not talking about "most people". You and Y0kel seem to be at cross purposes. For him Gerry Adams is irrelevant to the "dissidents". You meanwhile seem to think that the law should apply to "dissidents", of which Gerry Adams is one.
You can't have it both ways. Gerry Adams by all accounts (!) was a dissident, there was an almost textbook reconciliation process whereby he was brought into government and now you say forget all that let's look at the crimes he committed beforehand.
So either he is irrelevant to the "dissidents" or he is or was a "dissident".
Not your usual rigorous analysis Mr Brooke.
Not at all you aren't reading the thread incorrectly. I agree with Y0kel that republican dissidents don't give a toss about Adams. I also think that your concern Adams will respark a conflict is wrong. Adams is a mainstream policitcian who is trying to have his cake and eat it. He either agrees the past is the past in which case there needs to be an open conflict resolution commisiion as per South Africa or he agrees all sides c an pursue their grievances and that puts him in the court the same as paras, other provies or loyalist paramilitaries. Currently he's trying to have it both ways and he's been caught by his own rules. The law needs to be equal and apply to all citizens the same. Currently your position is irish people out to accept a bum deal in case it inconveniences you. As a matter of fact people in the RoI wouldn't accept your rules, they will pursue and lock up those who have attacked the state and that chiefly means Irish republicans.
"If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either."
That's true but that's realpolitik. It was Adams. The other guy was the other guy. And he wasn't instrumental for better or for worse in bringing about a fragile peace in the Province.
We have a decision to make - do we want to swallow the bitter pill, acknowledge that great injustices and crimes occurred and yet move towards a greater good while understanding that such action will cause great bitterness amongst a large number and yet a minority of people? Or do we want to continue the tit-for-tat?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
We? Who is we?
We is you and me and the United Kingdom. Thus marginalising those who want to continue the struggle.
We is the people who lived through it, day on day on day. Northern Ireland needs to stop being a special case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
My uncle played a small, but key (I think) role when he persuaded Edward Heath not to authorise steps to permanently address the very small number of individuals that would have need to be dealt with.
Unless of course you see them as what was it Nigel said, "organised crime"?
Of course it was organised crime. The IRA were an organised criminal enterprise. Their criminality may have had political motives, but it is intent, not motive, which counts in crime. As Lord Justice Sachs said in R v Caird (1970) 54 Criminal Appeal Reports 499, at 506:
When there is wanton and vicious violence of gross degree the Court is not concerned with whether it originates from gang rivalry or from political motives. It is the degree of mob violence that matters and the extent to which the public peace is being broken.
If anything, a political motive aggravates an offence, rather than providing exculpation or mitigation. The law should be enforced to the fullest extent that is consistent with the concessions we made in 1998.
Are the Taliban "organised criminals"? Any politics or religion in there at all?
Are the Taliban "organised criminals"? Any politics or religion in there at all?
The Taliban do not operate under the law of England or Northern Ireland. In both jurisdictions motive, whether political or religious, is rightly regarded as irrelevant to guilt, and potentially an aggravation at sentencing. The alternative position entails arguing that Mr Adebolajo and Mr Adebowale should have been entitled to an acquittal because their crime was motivated by a political, religious or ideological cause. The court rightly regarded that motivation as an aggravation.
It won't make a difference to them AT ALL whether Gerry swings or goes free. It does not come into their calculations. You completely over estimate this man's importance to the dissident movement.
Unless of coursed crime"?
Normalisation is ultimately about the law taking its course without politics getting in the way. Most people in NI want normalisation. They don't want loyalist or republican paramilitaries getting the benefits of violence. You will not get the equality that so many crave until that equality extends to application of the law.
People in NI accepted compromises, they had to swallow early releases of those who killed friends families and associates, they had to swallow people who were dedicated to terrorising their communities mysteriously becoming community workers funded by government yet still carrying the threat to sort people out.
That, whether you know it or not, is exactly how it is in NI. Maybe not in the leafy suburbs (the troubles didn't reach sections of the country to any great effect) but it exists in the working class communities most affected by violence and its legacy. What you haven't seen is that the cops have a welter of investigations on paramilitaries on both sides. The UVF, who lest we forget, also decided on going the peace process route and burying the guns (apparently) is facing a near existential threat. Senior republicans who used the cover of their power during the troubles to abuse children are also on the list of things being investigated.
Drop it all then?
Are people afraid of a return to conflict? Yes they are but less afraid than many people outside the country seem to be.
I don't disagree with anything you say, Y0kel.
We are talking about a severely disfunctional society, as was. We are now in the post-conflict stage (although by no means wholly post-conflict) and that means difficult decisions for all concerned.
Do we "drop it all"? The problem is that there will inevitably be a desire to address just one more injustice. That is wholly understandable and if it were my relatives I would be first in the queue but at some point, in the words of (was it Bruce Willis?): this has to end.
Where to draw the line is the impossible question but it has to be drawn.
I am not saying that people can take another 40 counts into consideration but we are talking about Gerry Adams who was a central figure in the republican movement, who then decided that engagement and negotiation was the way forward (and UK Govt were aware of his background) and now he has been arrested for activities that frankly are a surprise to no one although deeply distressing to the families concerned, but that were committed in the "before" phase of his political journey.
"The UK has lost the war against the Taliban. It won the war against the Provos and you only get peace from settling with your enemies. That peace was through the GFA and the aim was to return to a normal society as per the rest of the British Isles. In a normal society law applies and you don't get a hospital pass for murder. As was clear from recent events the Provos negotiated amnesties, if Adams didn't do it for himself well that's bad planning, but the law is the law, that's how civilised societies work."
You are getting closer. I'm glad I didn't lose all faith in your reasoning.
Yes, the peace was through the GFA but on the basis that manifestly NI was not a "normal society" then yes, in this instance and no matter how unpalatable, you _do_ get a hospital pass for murder (btw "hospital pass" means a bad thing not a good thing).
That's exactly the point.
You say that "Adams didn't do it for himself" but he had every right to believe that the UK Govt would accept it as understood that he had immunity because despite his apparent peripheral and irrelevant position in PIRA (as Y0kel might have it), he was the person who could make things happen or not happen.
That is the issue and that is why I think UK Govt or PSNI has made a mistake.
"The UK has lost the war against the Taliban. It won the war against the Provos and you only get peace from settling with your enemies. That peace was through the GFA and the aim was Yes, the peace was through the GFA but on the basis that manifestly NI was not a "normal society" then yes, in this instance and no matter how unpalatable, you _do_ get a hospital pass for murder (btw "hospital pass" means a bad thing not a good thing).
That's exactly the point.
You say that "Adams didn't do it for himself" but he had every right to believe that the UK Govt would accept it as understood that he had immunity because despite his apparent peripheral and irrelevant position in PIRA (as Y0kel might have it), he was the person who could make things happen or not happen.
That is the issue and that is why I think UK Govt or PSNI has made a mistake.
Except of course you don't understand the conditions on the ground in NI. It's about equality before the law and SF at present are trying to burn the candle at both ends.
So we have
protestant woman ( Mcconville ) marries catholic man and gets murdered by provos - everyone should drop it and let bygones be bygones
protestant woman ( Finucane ) marries catholic man who is murdered by loyalists - SF demand an enquiry and compensation.
It's either both cases get dropped or both pursued. You simply say we mustn't upset SF. Everyone else says we must have equality before the law. If most people in Ni want a just society as I believe they do, that starts with equality before the law.
Unless of course you see them as what was it Nigel said, "organised crime"?
Of course it was organised crime. The IRA were an organised criminal enterprise. Their criminality may have had political motives, but it is intent, not motive, which counts in crime. As Lord Justice Sachs said in R v Caird (1970) 54 Criminal Appeal Reports 499, at 506:
When there is wanton and vicious violence of gross degree the Court is not concerned with whether it originates from gang rivalry or from political motives. It is the degree of mob violence that matters and the extent to which the public peace is being broken.
If anything, a political motive aggravates an offence, rather than providing exculpation or mitigation. The law should be enforced to the fullest extent that is consistent with the concessions we made in 1998.
Are the Taliban "organised criminals"? Any politics or religion in there at all?
Err where do you think heroin comes from ?
Right, so the Taliban are just ODCs who use heroin to get rich and buy Gucci handbags.
But to your other post, my point is that you are separating out "republican dissidents" from Gerry Adams. The issue is that Gerry Adams _was_ a republican dissident and look how far we have got by treating him, and him agreeing to be treated as a "mainstream politician". You are absolutely right that he is trying to have his cake and eat it by saying "no not me ever" and yes the ideal would have been an SA-style T&R process.
But for whatever reason it ain't happening so we need to deal with what we have in front of us and that sometimes is awkward. Arresting the "mainstream politician" who has renounced violence for the violence he committed decades ago to me doesn't seem sensible.
It won't make a difference to them AT ALL whether Gerry swings or goes free. It does not come into their calculations. You completely over estimate this man's importance to the dissident movement.
Unless of coursed crime"?
Normalisation is ultimately about the law taking its course without politics getting in the way. Most people in NI want normalisation. They don't want loyalist or republican paramilitaries getting the benefits of violence. You will not get the equality that so many crave until that equality extends to application of the law.
People in NI accepted compromises, they had to swallow early releases of those who killed friends families and associates, they had to swallow people who were dedicated to terrorising their communities mysteriously becoming community workers funded by government yet still carrying the threat to sort people out.
Drop it all then?
Are people afraid of a return to conflict? Yes they are but less afraid than many people outside the country seem to be.
I don't disagree with anything you say, Y0kel.
We are talking about a severely disfunctional society, as was. We are now in the post-conflict stage (although by no means wholly post-conflict) and that means difficult decisions for all concerned.
Do we "drop it all"? The problem is that there will inevitably be a desire to address just one more injustice. That is wholly understandable and if it were my relatives I would be first in the queue but at some point, in the words of (was it Bruce Willis?): this has to end.
Where to draw the line is the impossible question but it has to be drawn.
I am not saying that people can take another 40 counts into consideration but we are talking about Gerry Adams who was a central figure in the republican movement, who then decided that engagement and negotiation was the way forward (and UK Govt were aware of his background) and now he has been arrested for activities that frankly are a surprise to no one although deeply distressing to the families concerned, but that were committed in the "before" phase of his political journey.
That to me is the issue.
Really your more hung up on the past than the people in NI. Anyone under 21 won't remember a thing about the troubles. The local politics is a bit weird but most of the combatants are in their fifties or older, Londoners have seen more violent deaths than NI teenagers.
It won't make a difference to them AT ALL whether Gerry swings or goes free. It does not come into their calculations. You completely over estimate this man's importance to the dissident movement.
Unless of coursed crime"?
Normalisation is ultimately about the law taking its course without politics getting in the way. Most people in NI want normalisation. They don't want loyalist or republican paramilitaries getting the benefits of violence. You will not get the equality that so many crave until that equality extends to application of the law.
People in NI accepted compromises, they had to swallow early releases of those who killed friends families and associates, they had to swallow people who were dedicated to terrorising their communities mysteriously becoming community workers funded by government yet still carrying the threat to sort people out.
Drop it all then?
Are people afraid of a return to conflict? Yes they are but less afraid than many people outside the country seem to be.
I don't disagree with anything you say, Y0kel.
We are talking about a severely disfunctional society, as was. We are now in the post-conflict stage (although by no means wholly post-conflict) and that means difficult decisions for all concerned.
Do we "drop it all"? The problem is that there will inevitably be a desire to address just one more injustice. That is wholly understandable and if it were my relatives I would be first in the queue but at some point, in the words of (was it Bruce Willis?): this has to end.
Where to draw the line is the impossible question but it has to be drawn.
I am not saying that people can take another 40 counts into consideration but we are talking about Gerry Adams who was a central figure in the republican movement, who then decided that engagement and negotiation was the way forward (and UK Govt were aware of his background) and now he has been arrested for activities that frankly are a surprise to no one although deeply distressing to the families concerned, but that were committed in the "before" phase of his political journey.
That to me is the issue.
Really your more hung up on the past than the people in NI. Anyone under 21 won't remember a thing about the troubles. The local politics is a bit weird but most of the combatants are in their fifties or older, Londoners have seen more violent deaths than NI teenagers.
Irony of the year award: in talking about NI I am told off for being hung up on the past. And with the marching season nearly upon us....
and/but as much as I would like to stay and chat...I am off to bed.
Unless of course you see them as what was it Nigel said, "organised crime"?
Of course it was organised crime. The IRA were an organised criminal enterprise. Their criminality may have had political motives, but it is intent, not motive, which counts in crime. As Lord Justice Sachs said in R v Caird (1970) 54 Criminal Appeal Reports 499, at 506:
When there is wanton and vicious violence of gross degree the Court is not concerned with whether it originates from gang rivalry or from political motives. It is the degree of mob violence that matters and the extent to which the public peace is being broken.
If anything, a political motive aggravates an offence, rather than providing exculpation or mitigation. The law should be enforced to the fullest extent that is consistent with the concessions we made in 1998.
Are the Taliban "organised criminals"? Any politics or religion in there at all?
Err where do you think heroin comes from ?
Right, so the Taliban are just ODCs who use heroin to get rich and buy Gucci handbags.
But to your other post, my point is that you are separating out "republican dissidents" from Gerry Adams. The issue is that Gerry Adams _was_ a republican dissident and look how far we have got by treating him, and him agreeing to be treated as a "mainstream politician". You are absolutely right that he is trying to have his cake and eat it by saying "no not me ever" and yes the ideal would have been an SA-style T&R process.
But for whatever reason it ain't happening so we need to deal with what we have in front of us and that sometimes is awkward. Arresting the "mainstream politician" who has renounced violence for the violence he committed decades ago to me doesn't seem sensible.
In the words of the often underestimated Seamus Mallon the GFA was Sunningdale for slow learners. Adams didn't get round the table becasue he was a man of peace he got round the table because he finally realised the armed struggle had nowhere to go and needed a way out. If he started again tomorrow he'd be back where he left off in 1998 in a cul de sac of his own making.
It won't make a difference to them AT ALL whether Gerry swings or goes free. It does not come into their calculations. You completely over estimate this man's importance to the dissident movement.
Unless of coursed crime"?
Normalisation is ultimately about the law taking its course without politics getting in the way. Most people in NI want normalisation. They don't want loyalist or republican paramilitaries getting the benefits of violence. You will not get the equality that so many crave until that equality extends to application of the law.
People in NI accepted compromises, they had to swallow early releases of those who killed friends families and associates, they had to swallow people who were dedicated to terrorising their communities mysteriously becoming community workers funded by government yet still carrying the threat to sort people out.
Drop it all then?
Are people afraid of a return to conflict? Yes they are but less afraid than many people outside the country seem to be.
I don't disagree with anything you say, Y0kel.
We are talking about a severely disfunctional society, as was. We are now in the post-conflict stage (although by no means wholly post-conflict) and that means difficult decisions for all concerned.
Do we "drop it all"? The problem is that there will inevitably be a desire to address just one more injustice. That is wholly understandable and if it were my relatives I would be first in the queue but at some point, in the words of (was it Bruce Willis?): this has to end.
That to me is the issue.
Really your more hung up on the past than the people in NI. Anyone under 21 won't remember a thing about the troubles. The local politics is a bit weird but most of the combatants are in their fifties or older, Londoners have seen more violent deaths than NI teenagers.
Irony of the year award: in talking about NI I am told off for being hung up on the past. And with the marching season nearly upon us....
and/but as much as I would like to stay and chat...I am off to bed.
A domain!
LOL well of course you are you haven't kept pace with changes on the ground, and as I always say when the english get a superior air about Ulster's past fixation, can you explain Guy Fawkes night to me ? :-)
The marching season has lost a lot of its teeth, particularly the 11th and 12th July. The localised trouble is nothing, noisy, problematic and a pig when you get into the middle of it as I did on occasion last year but nothing compared the trouble that came before.
Comments
St Ives
twitter.com/UKIP/status/462301334411431937/photo/1
Huntingdonshire
twitter.com/PeterReeve/status/462304884780695552
In his Express article today, Mr Farage speculated that he'd addressed ~10,000 people in the last two weeks!
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/473646/These-Far-Left-egg-chucking-protesters-look-like-they-need-a-good-wash-says-Farage
There needs to be a movement from that thinking and to play the SF game (ha! of course SF = Sinn Fein not SF as you or I might be used to it). From what you say it sounds like Downing St are trying to do that and to understand that that was then and this is now.
How to square the circle of the murder of a mother of 10 god only knows but we either choose to move on or we create exceptions. If Sinn Fein is creating those exceptions there is no reason for us to play along with that.
I don't think there is anything to be gained from prosecuting Gerry Adams for one incident. Isn't it either all or nothing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNacOVmerhU
That's the grim reality of moving on.
They are not protesters but militants, having shot down helicopters:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/ukraine-crisis-pro-russian-forces-claim-assault-on-slavyansk-live-updates
Some were present in Russia's intervention in Georgia, so hardly eastern Ukrainian protesters:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/world/europe/photos-link-masked-men-in-east-ukraine-to-russia.html
The majority of Ukrainians in all regions want to stay part of Ukraine:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117357/despite-pro-soviet-protests-majority-ukrainians-lean-toward-europe
The government of Ukraine was not overthrown. The president was removed by parliament in a constitutional supermajority:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26304842
The Kremlin has web brigades that try to use propaganda on online blogs:
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-233212
You have only had an account since April this year, after the crisis started:
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/profile/comments/858/FalseFlag
Mr. Y0kel, always interesting to read your posts on matters such as Ukraine.
In more trivial news, I watched Have I Got News For You for the first time in a little while (well, I saw the one Clarkson hosted, which was a good deal funnier, but apart from that haven't seen it for a long while).
Not tremendously amusing. The knocking of UKIP was laboured and unoriginal, and the female guest (Bridget Christie) did a good job of showing why all-male panels are ok.
On the plus side, Agents of SHIELD was good, (not quite on a par with the previous episode or two, but still entertaining).
They are too far down the track to revert for long.
"If it wasn't Adams, you wouldn't even know who the other bloke was or that he'd be lifted. It wouldn't have warranted one comment on this forum and thats the point. The beard isn't above the law either."
That's true but that's realpolitik. It was Adams. The other guy was the other guy. And he wasn't instrumental for better or for worse in bringing about a fragile peace in the Province.
We have a decision to make - do we want to swallow the bitter pill, acknowledge that great injustices and crimes occurred and yet move towards a greater good while understanding that such action will cause great bitterness amongst a large number and yet a minority of people? Or do we want to continue the tit-for-tat?
My worry is that great compromises already have been and will need to be made and this for some reason seems to be against the spirit of those compromises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odessa#Demographics
I am not saying I am happy with where we stand right now and wish fervently that it could be shown that Adams was not involved as that would be the best way for almost everyone. But I am afraid that is not - currently at least - the case.
Secondly those who wish to continue 'the struggle' are containable, very containable.
Hope all had a good night. Freezing cold in London this evening, not great for those of us who still smoke ;-)
The National Association of Head Teachers said it had found “concerted efforts” to infiltrate at least six schools in Birmingham.
But the union also said that the scandal had “connections” to other large cities.
The Telegraph understands that there are growing concerns about the possible infiltration of schools in Bradford, Manchester and parts of east London."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10804289/Head-teachers-raise-serious-concerns-over-Islamic-school-take-over.html
As I said, either we acknowledge that atrocities were committed and we move on with a lingering sense of injustice on both sides or we acknowledge that atrocities were committed and continue the fight.
Both are fine but Op Banner ended some years ago and if we want to go back to that then that IMO would be a mistake.
It needs compromise but I believe that the people of NI would rather have peace than war on a point of principle.
It is transparent that the struggle is not containable because look at the McConville family - they still dare not or are worried about naming names.
It was never containable. Northern Ireland isn't a special case. It is a case where special circumstances prevailed and to a certain extent still prevail.
It was always my contention that if the people on the mainland knew of what HMF were doing in NI during Op Banner they would have been shocked. I don't think that period was great for HMF (it certainly lead them into a false set of assumptions for Herrick or Telic) or, most importantly, for the people of NI.
If you don't want to forgive and forget and you want to nab the baddies then we are back to the bad old days. It sounds like you live in NI in which case it is your prerogative to want just that.
But I don't think (and I agree that I am just an observer so what right do I have) that that is the most productive way forward.
Nice bunch.
The key factor is how that 1922 group feel. Before the coup in Kiev they voted for the more pro-Russian faction within a united Ukraine but after the coup they may have changed their mind. My guess is they have been sliding towards Russia but impossible to say for sure.
Anyway the Ukrainian army seems reluctant to carry out orders.
A no win situation for us let alone the Ukrainian people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10798199/Ukraine-crisis-a-no-win-win-economic-situation.html
http://isteve.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/state-dept-putin-invades-ukraine-with.html
But...look at the legacy groups now operating. For some unfathomable reason there continue to be groups who want to continue the struggle. Gerry Adams (and Martin McG) cut out much of that so that the remaining groups are fragmented and less well organised (you I'm sure know far more about them than I). But these latter groups persist.
Are you really saying that you want to issue a further rallying cry to unite those groups by going after the people who have, to the public at least, renounced violence and embraced some kind of democracy?
It's a shame we weren't both at Dirty Dicks tonight because I think it would have been interesting to have a discussion about this although I appreciate that my perspective is one of outsider rather than one whose daily reality it is.
And because this happened 42 years ago why do you assume you outrank me?
I'm sorry. Either we are entering a new era in NI or we aren't. Two soldiers were killed ordering pizza recently. There are any number of violent crimes daily. But we want to re-ignite the bad old days by ignoring someone who has renounced, in their public pronouncements, violence. And you applaud.
Sometimes I think you all deserve each other.
https://twitter.com/abelicc/status/462332860448247808/photo/1
So anti-Semitic on top of everything else. Nice.
Unless of course you see them as what was it Nigel said, "organised crime"?
Was this giving the Yes the boost ? If the "bedroom tax" is such a good thing, why devolve now ?
But hold on...I thought the presence of AQ in Afghan had a direct effect on terrorism on UK soil but regardless, we are talking about terrorism and my question remains: do you think you can solve a terrorist problem (this time in Afghan) without talking to the terrorists?
That's pretty relevant to terrorism anywhere IMO.
Not really. You just have a southern view where other people's lives are worth less than your own. You'd be quite happy to pursue the killers of PC Yvonne Fletcher or the guys behind the 7/7 murders rather than let bygones be bygones ; in the words of Jake Burns "green wogs" don't count for you since it's not your community. However as Y0kel has pointed out your analysis of NI is wrong in any case. Most people have already moved on and have no wish to go back to the bad old days and the Adams incident however it plays out is actually a positive sign of normality and the rule of law re-applying. If the community is going to have the same normality as every where else the writ of law has to apply. And as we've seen with Mr Clifford 42 years for a crime is nothing.
"Most people" have always wanted to live their lives in peace in NI. We are not talking about "most people". You and Y0kel seem to be at cross purposes. For him Gerry Adams is irrelevant to the "dissidents". You meanwhile seem to think that the law should apply to "dissidents", of which Gerry Adams is one.
You can't have it both ways. Gerry Adams by all accounts (!) was a dissident, there was an almost textbook reconciliation process whereby he was brought into government and now you say forget all that let's look at the crimes he committed beforehand.
So either he is irrelevant to the "dissidents" or he is or was a "dissident".
Not your usual rigorous analysis Mr Brooke.
They fall in to two categories : organised crime hiding behind "the cause"; blinkered nutters who don't like compromise.
"The UK has lost the war against the Taliban. It won the war against the Provos and you only get peace from settling with your enemies. That peace was through the GFA and the aim was to return to a normal society as per the rest of the British Isles. In a normal society law applies and you don't get a hospital pass for murder. As was clear from recent events the Provos negotiated amnesties, if Adams didn't do it for himself well that's bad planning, but the law is the law, that's how civilised societies work."
You are getting closer. I'm glad I didn't lose all faith in your reasoning.
Yes, the peace was through the GFA but on the basis that manifestly NI was not a "normal society" then yes, in this instance and no matter how unpalatable, you _do_ get a hospital pass for murder (btw "hospital pass" means a bad thing not a good thing).
That's exactly the point.
You say that "Adams didn't do it for himself" but he had every right to believe that the UK Govt would accept it as understood that he had immunity because despite his apparent peripheral and irrelevant position in PIRA (as Y0kel might have it), he was the person who could make things happen or not happen.
That is the issue and that is why I think UK Govt or PSNI has made a mistake.
People in NI accepted compromises, they had to swallow early releases of those who killed friends families and associates, they had to swallow people who were dedicated to terrorising their communities mysteriously becoming community workers funded by government yet still carrying the threat to sort people out.
That, whether you know it or not, is exactly how it is in NI. Maybe not in the leafy suburbs (the troubles didn't reach sections of the country to any great effect) but it exists in the working class communities most affected by violence and its legacy. What you haven't seen is that the cops have a welter of investigations on paramilitaries on both sides. The UVF, who lest we forget, also decided on going the peace process route and burying the guns (apparently) is facing a near existential threat. Senior republicans who used the cover of their power during the troubles to abuse children are also on the list of things being investigated.
Drop it all then?
Are people afraid of a return to conflict? Yes they are but less afraid than many people outside the country seem to be.
Are the Taliban "organised criminals"? Any politics or religion in there at all?
Err where do you think heroin comes from ?
We are talking about a severely disfunctional society, as was. We are now in the post-conflict stage (although by no means wholly post-conflict) and that means difficult decisions for all concerned.
Do we "drop it all"? The problem is that there will inevitably be a desire to address just one more injustice. That is wholly understandable and if it were my relatives I would be first in the queue but at some point, in the words of (was it Bruce Willis?): this has to end.
Where to draw the line is the impossible question but it has to be drawn.
I am not saying that people can take another 40 counts into consideration but we are talking about Gerry Adams who was a central figure in the republican movement, who then decided that engagement and negotiation was the way forward (and UK Govt were aware of his background) and now he has been arrested for activities that frankly are a surprise to no one although deeply distressing to the families concerned, but that were committed in the "before" phase of his political journey.
That to me is the issue.
So we have
protestant woman ( Mcconville ) marries catholic man and gets murdered by provos - everyone should drop it and let bygones be bygones
protestant woman ( Finucane ) marries catholic man who is murdered by loyalists - SF demand an enquiry and compensation.
It's either both cases get dropped or both pursued. You simply say we mustn't upset SF. Everyone else says we must have equality before the law. If most people in Ni want a just society as I believe they do, that starts with equality before the law.
Right, so the Taliban are just ODCs who use heroin to get rich and buy Gucci handbags.
But to your other post, my point is that you are separating out "republican dissidents" from Gerry Adams. The issue is that Gerry Adams _was_ a republican dissident and look how far we have got by treating him, and him agreeing to be treated as a "mainstream politician". You are absolutely right that he is trying to have his cake and eat it by saying "no not me ever" and yes the ideal would have been an SA-style T&R process.
But for whatever reason it ain't happening so we need to deal with what we have in front of us and that sometimes is awkward. Arresting the "mainstream politician" who has renounced violence for the violence he committed decades ago to me doesn't seem sensible.
and/but as much as I would like to stay and chat...I am off to bed.
A domain!
But to your other post, my point is that you are separating out "republican dissidents" from Gerry Adams. The issue is that Gerry Adams _was_ a republican dissident and look how far we have got by treating him, and him agreeing to be treated as a "mainstream politician". You are absolutely right that he is trying to have his cake and eat it by saying "no not me ever" and yes the ideal would have been an SA-style T&R process.
But for whatever reason it ain't happening so we need to deal with what we have in front of us and that sometimes is awkward. Arresting the "mainstream politician" who has renounced violence for the violence he committed decades ago to me doesn't seem sensible.
In the words of the often underestimated Seamus Mallon the GFA was Sunningdale for slow learners. Adams didn't get round the table becasue he was a man of peace he got round the table because he finally realised the armed struggle had nowhere to go and needed a way out. If he started again tomorrow he'd be back where he left off in 1998 in a cul de sac of his own making.