Typical sdlp nonsense

Does Sean have any proof of either the IRA carrying out the robbery or Sinn Fein's knowledge of this?

"No nationalist voted for kidnapping a family and armed robbery. Nationalists resent the way unionists are now making out that they support kidnappings and crime."

Shock horror --stop press nationalists not behind IRA campaign, NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR amongst others Enniskillen? Did not kidnap Grundig employee and hold him to ransom- ---50% + of catholics now vote for the party which condoned these actions. An evens bet looks reasonable to me.

CG can you explain to the world why the IRA still require weapons?
Why do Sinn Fein require a private army. Why? Why? Why?
If you can answer this question then you will have my respect.

The question is not why does the IRA still require weapons? But the manner in which the gun is taken out of Irish politics.

The IRA is committed to the peace process and the attainment of a United Ireland through political means. That said the IRA is not a defeated army and will not stand for humiliation attempts upon itself and its members. Too many volunteers have died for this to be allowed happen.

The IRA have apologised to non-combatants killed through out the conflict. Have the British apologised for their forces collusion with unionist paramilitaries?

"Why do Sinn Fein require a private army"

Sinn Féin doesn’t require a private army and never have. The majority of nationalists in the north support Sinn Féin. 340,000 people vote Sinn Féin.
That is Sinn Féin's army, Their army is their mandate.

I doubt if this will suffice as we come from different perspectives but it’s the best I can do.

Why do Sinn Fein require a private army. Why? Why? Why?

I don't know if I'd call it a "private army," but why do they need it? Because without it, they wouldn't be in such a strong bargaining position. So far, as a strategy, it appears to be working. And it will be that way until it's no longer needed.

I appreciate your comments cg. However as long as Sinn Fein remain wedded to the IRA any actions taken by the IRA will result in damage to the political process.
Questions arise such as - Colombia Three, Northern Bank robbery, Spying in Stormont, Punishment Beatings, Attacks on SDLP members....the list goes on.
I dont believe the British have any right to be rulers in Ireland but I also believe that Sinn Fein are not an honest party and have a tendency to intimidate in the strongest manner those who oppose their point of view.

"Attacks on SDLP members"

I am going to ask you one final time, what attacks?

cg

"Sinn Fein doesn't require a private army and never have."

And if you believe that,you'll believe anything.
Sinn Fein are where they are today due to their connection with IRA terrorism.

They bring shame on the nationalist cause.A vote for Sinn Fein is a vote for the border.

Young Irelander

"Sinn Fein are where they are today due to their connection with IRA terrorism."

They are where they are today because the majority of nationalism in the north supports them, their principles and the leadership they show.

"They bring shame on the nationalist cause.A vote for Sinn Fein is a vote for the border."

Don't be ridiculous

50% + of catholics now vote for the party which condoned these actions.

Nonsense, by my estimation fewer than a quarter of those Catholics entitled to vote voted for de Brún.

Well said YI, by the way. There will be no all-Ireland State while SF's mafia friends remain operative. People in the Republic would like an all-Ireland state, but they don't want our problems down there.

The question is not why does the IRA still require weapons? But the manner in which the gun is taken out of Irish politics.

The rest of Ireland will define the question thanks. The answer is because SF's mafia links are extremely useful politically. It's nothing whatsoever with 'taking the gun out of Irish politics' - the IRA or SF could manage precisely that tomorrow if either had any interest in real democracy.

"The rest of Ireland will define the question thanks"

IJP

When exactly did you become the spokesperson for the rest of Ireland?

cg

"They are where they are today because the majority of nationalism in the north supports them,their principles and their leadership."

Wow you are blinded by their rhetoric,aren't you?!Principles and leadership?
People who organise a bank robbery don't have principles in my view.
Gerry Adams doesn't have alot of principles to appear on the Late Late Show demanding the release of Garda McCabe's killers while at the same time knowing of a Provisional IRA plot to rob the Northern Bank.
The leadership of Sinn Fein hinges on the Army Council of a terrorist organisation that has murdered men,women,children and even Gardai in a war of ethnic cleansing against the protestant population.

"Don't be ridiculous"

That's rich coming from someone who believes a party tied to an organisation that has spent decades killing unionists,is going to somehow convince those very unionists to vote for reunification!You're living in cloud cuckoo land with the rest of Sinn Fein's supporters!

By the way,cg,Irish nationalism is based on 32 counties.The fact that the "majority of nationalism in the north supports them" is a rather partitionist outlook!
The majority of nationalists in the island do NOT support them!

IJP

"There will be no all-Ireland state while SF's mafia friends remain operative."

Exactly.Good to hear from you again IJP.

cg

Was Gerry Fit not effectivly put out of Belfast for not surporting the hungar strikers?

Young Irelander

See you have had a "road to damascus" conversion .

I must object to the line :

"That's rich coming from someone who believes a party tied to an organisation that has spent decades killing unionists", that's the sort of thing I'd expect from the likes of Dr No.

At last count some 340 000 people, who voted for SF in the north, might find your rash analysis disturbing in the least.

I would also advise against stating that "the majority of nationalists on the Island do not support them".

After a close examination of that phrase you may be wrong, you can certainly not be categorical and the future may well change the count even if it is not your wish.

You are also I believe confusing residents of the Republic with "nationalists", this being far from the case.

When exactly did you become the spokesperson for the rest of Ireland?

About the same time SF became a spokesman for 'the Irish people'. But I forgot, only SF represents the real will of the people...

Since I base my comments on the policies and releases of all the parties elected by the people of Ireland except SF, I'd say I'm somewhere nearer the mark.

SP

You are also I believe confusing residents of the Republic with "nationalists", this being far from the case.

Eh???

I think it self-evident that YI was referring to Nationalist Ireland as a whole, and since nearly all the residents of the Republic vote for pro-unification parties, surely they have to count?

IJP

Yes indeed, I contest this so called self evident unanimity in the Republic on the issue of unification.

"Yes indeed, I contest this so called self evident unanimity in the Republic on the issue of unification."

ShayPaul,
there may not be unanimity on unification but no party is stupid enough to say they are against it in any way, shape or form. I am unaware of any party in the south ever coming out and saying they are unsure about unification.

It's more a matter of how far they are willing to go and what they are willing to sacrifice to achieve it.

At last count some 340 000 people, who voted for SF in the north, might find your rash analysis disturbing in the least.

Are you sure about those figures ?

in 2004 Bairbre de Brún got 144,541 (26.3%)Votes for
SF out of a total electorate of 1,191,307; the number of votes cast was 554,744.

Northern Ireland: November 26, 2003
Devolved Assembly Election

Sinn Féin (SF) 162,758 23.52%

Registered Voters: 1,097,526

Votes Cast: 702,249

Valid Votes: 692,028

Invalid Votes: 10,221

Davros

No I was not at all sure about the figure, I picked it up on another thread without checking, and stand corrected.

OK, SP, thanks for clarifying.

How many people in the Republic would you say:
a) oppose unification at all;
b) oppose unification 'because it'd get them all mixed up with the North's problems'?

(My judgement would be a) very few; b) about half, but it is only that.)

ShayPaul

"See you have had a "road to damascus" conversion."

I have?How's that?

"You are also I believe confusing residents of the Republic with "nationalists",this being far from the case."

As IJP said nearly all residents of the Republic vote for pro-unification parties.
Also,it is Adams that has frequently made the claim that 80% of the island is nationalist and 20% of the island is unionist.

If unity is to occur,unionists must be won over to the idea.Only the most naive nationalist would believe that Adams and McGuinness are going to win over unionists to the idea!
Votes for Sinn Fein mean the border stays firmly in place.
I want a united Ireland.Sinn Fein cannot and will not deliver it!

YI

If unity is to occur,unionists must be won over to the idea.Only the most naive nationalist would believe that Adams and McGuinness are going to win over unionists to the idea! Votes for Sinn Fein mean the border stays firmly in place. I want a united Ireland.Sinn Fein cannot and will not deliver it!

Well, more precisely, some 'Unionists' would have to be won over (most likely), and most Unionists would have to have an all-Ireland State they could at least tolerate.

You are entirely correct to say that SF's anti-democratic antics will achieve neither, and therefore effectively a vote for SF is a vote for the land border and indeed for social division and instability.

Problem is, the SDLP, despite its peaceful and democratic heritage, is too toothless to differentiate itself in practice from SF, and therefore cannot deliver that either.

Those who are genuine about an all-Ireland state should consider the ultimate step - vote for stability and democracy first, as a step towards a genuine and respectful debate on the merits of a constitutional change. At worst, that would get stability and a fair voice for Nationalist in the running of the North. At best, it would deliver a stable and prosperous all-Ireland State somewhere down the line.

If you want real opportunity, real stability and real democracy, remember neither 'Nationalist' party in the North can deliver it.

Thanks Shay. I think the 340,000 figure is likely to be all-Ireland .

IJP

I think my answer to your 2 questions will not clarify the position, so I have added 2 more.

A) oppose unification at all

That would of course, as you say, be very few, as few will actively mobilise to "oppose" most anything

B) oppose getting mixed up with the north

That would of course be quite a few , but same remark "active opposition" is less likely

C) "actively" support unification - more than A and probably not too far from B

D) have other more important things to bother about - probably the winning majority

The attitude towards the north over the last 80+ years would I feel bare out my analysis.

This does not negate your correct remark, regarding the position of the political parties and their necessary support for unification in order to avoid a pasting at the polls. I would advance however that lip service to unification and getting on with the job are 2 different birds, as the latest releases of political documents from the 70's have indicated. I might add that no-one was really surprised.

History has shown that the Republic doesn't really give a monkeys about the North, apart from when it risks to spill over and spoil the party down there. Who could blame them when they see what we get up to here.

Of course the ultimate goal of a United Ireland is a nice warm pipe dream for any self respecting Irishman, and makes for a good conversation piece for foreign visitors.

Sounds sensible to me, SP. It is worth adding to my comments, as I think you are hinting, that there is a difference between passively believing in a position and actively believing in it.

Like the Catalans' usual comment 'Everyone knows we want independence, we just don't like to talk about it too often...'

Those who are genuine about an all-Ireland state should consider the ultimate step - vote for stability and democracy first, as a step towards a genuine and respectful debate on the merits of a constitutional change. At worst, that would get stability and a fair voice for Nationalist in the running of the North. At best, it would deliver a stable and prosperous all-Ireland State somewhere down the line.

The question is not why does the IRA still require weapons? But the manner in which the gun is taken out of Irish politics.

The IRA is committed to the peace process and the attainment of a United Ireland through political means. That said the IRA is not a defeated army and will not stand for humiliation attempts upon itself and its members. Too many volunteers have died for this to be allowed happen.

The IRA have apologised to non-combatants killed through out the conflict. Have the British apologised for their forces collusion with unionist paramilitaries?

"Why do Sinn Fein require a private army"

Sinn Féin doesn’t require a private army and never have. The majority of nationalists in the north support Sinn Féin. 340,000 people vote Sinn Féin.
That is Sinn Féin's army, Their army is their mandate.

I doubt if this will suffice as we come from different perspectives but it’s the best I can do.