Explain this to me

[mactalla]

www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0404/breaking43.htm


Sorry, but this is the sort of thing that sticks in a republican's craw. Different rules for different people.

How is this OK? Would Gerry by within his rights to pull down the assembly over this?

In ten years this has never been an issue! Not even discussed. You can have yours, but we cannot have ours....because, why?

[Jim]

Because the UDA arent trying to pull down the union, basically.

[Wasp]

The UDA are not part of the main Unionist party, or rather the uprg are not the main Unionist party. If they were then I don't think any difference would have been made between sinn fein or the uprg.

[mactalla]

wasp said:

The UDA are not part of the main Unionist party, or rather the uprg are not the main Unionist party. If they were then I don't think any difference would have been made between sinn fein or the uprg.

With all due respect, wasp...is é cac tharbh sin! Its a glaring double standard, and the fact that most unionists cannot see it, or refuse to see it, or just plain don't give a flying ..... is a massive problem.

What difference does it make if they are part of a major party? Until recently, when was Sinn Féin ever a major party? It was not a major party when the GFA negotiations started, but PIRA guns have been, and still are, the major focus. In fact, the ONLY focus.

Don't come back with, well, they didn't sign up to the GFA, so they do not have to abide by it. The people of Ireland did not sign up for partition either, but that didn't seem to matter.

And the to top it all off...the man said this to the chief of police's face!! And....AND they are giving them 1.2mil to boot!!! Ar son Dé!

Sorry...I am spitting, I am so angry!

[Wasp]

First of all, all loyalist paramilitariies should dump there weapons now and have whatever weapons they have destroyed. IMO the sooner the better. The fact remains at the time of the GFA, sinn fein were big players with a big vote, the uprg or any other political wing of loyalist paramilitaries are not. They weren't then and going by elections they are not now either. The same can not be said for sinn fein, electoral results prove this.

The armed wing of sinn fein were well armed, a bigger threat and better organised than any loyalist paramilitary group. But IMO weapons are wepons and no-one should be treated any different to anyone else. All weapons belonging to any paramilitary group should be destroyed, end of.

[mactalla]

wasp said:

First of all, all loyalist paramilitariies should dump there weapons now and have whatever weapons they have destroyed. IMO the sooner the better. The fact remains at the time of the GFA, sinn fein were big players with a big vote, the uprg or any other political wing of loyalist paramilitaries are not. They weren't then and going by elections they are not now either. The same can not be said for sinn fein, electoral results prove this.

The armed wing of sinn fein were well armed, a bigger threat and better organised than any loyalist paramilitary group. But IMO weapons are wepons and no-one should be treated any different to anyone else. All weapons belonging to any paramilitary group should be destroyed, end of.

I appreciate your comments. Hope I didn't spit on a good shirt.

I guess the frustration, for me, is that the provos have dumped their weapons, cemented them over, have had the Father, Son and Holy Ghost attest to the fact that it happened, and still it isn't good enough....BUT....this guy can waltz up to Orde and say, sorry....don't think so...we just aren't ready, quite yet. Give us awhile....OH and give us 1.2 mil on top of it.

[An Fear Dubh]

Mactalla - I share your frustration at Loyalist and Unionist blinkered views and the double standards they hold. During a debate in another forum with Arrow, he admitted that he was not aware that he held double standards. And I can understand that maybe the case that many can not see they hold a view that is a double standard.

But if we ask members here to read that news report and insert IRA in place of UDA and SF for UPRG and then ask themselves how would they respond. And if they are honest the response from Loyalist forum members would be different.

Republicans must not fall into the same trap that Unionists fell into. We must not become sidetracked by the red-herring of decomissioning the way Unionists have let themselves be. But we can use the double standards that Unionists have built for themselves to use as a political stick to smack them with. Like Willie McCrea was sick in the stomach at Paisley sitting with Adams but that same nausea did not effect him when he himself shared a platform with LVF leader Billy Wright a man credited with 40 odd murders.

But can you imagine what Wasp would say if the British government had said to the IRA listen here is a couple of million and if you want at any time you can decomission.

[Jim]

To be honest for once I half agree with WASP but for different reasons.

The Provos where a much much bigger threat to the actual union and to britain then the UDA are or ever could be because the UDA are loyal, not rebels. The UDA didnt have a mainland bombing campaign and etc, we all know the score on what the provisionals done and how they fought aganst british soldiers/ruc/sas.

The two paramilitaries serve different causes and have different reasons to exist therefore the UDA are not a threat to the british government and can take their time decommissioning. I dont agree with it but thats how I think its being seen as.

The reason he can waltz up to big Orde is because arresting him isnt gonna do nowt when they are working on them disbanding/decommissioning, it would just cause more problems, perhaps the psni have learnt their lesson considering they where better recruiters for the ra then the ra where.

[Wasp]

AFD wrote 'But can you imagine what Wasp would say if the British government had said to the IRA listen here is a couple of million and if you want at any time you can decomission'

Under the GFA what was the timescale for decommisionig? Was there a date set? Didn't the ira have the time to decommision? Has republican areas received any form of extra financing thanks to the ira ceasefire, before they decommisioned weapons?

Now let me make myself clear so you don't have to imagine too much about me. No money should be given to any paramilitary organisation especially if they still have weapons. If the money is for the deprived areas then fair enough because this money is badly needed. If the money is solely for the UDA or anyother paramilitary group then it's a BIG NO from me.

[An Fear Dubh]

Aspiring to different objectives and having different capabilities, still does not excuse the different standards being applied.

While I follow your logic Jim, and accept that people do hold that perspective. But I think they have been misguided into that view point.

On the threat to the Union, we must look at the UDA controlled protestant workers strike of 1974. This was the biggest threat ever posed to the Union during the whole of the 'troubles'. While the UDA have since been weakened and no longer hold the same threat. We can not say that they were never a threat to the Union, although that was never their intended objective.

[Jim]

I agree with you, the uwc strike was a big thing but it wasnt exactly a bomb planted in canary wharf or an assassination attempt at brixton hotel, that was my point. it was an economic threat while the IRAs threat has been a threat with constant violence AND economic threats (by bombing economic centres, making belfast uninvestable, etc).

My post above wasnt exactly one I agree with, but I was being truthful with what I think is going ahead and why its happening. I dont agree that there should be double standards and its just not on.

IF the UDA use the money to better loyalist areas then fair enough, at least it went to something useful and its one step closer to decommissioning.

Under the GFA what was the timescale for decommisionig? Was there a date set? Didn't the ira have the time to decommision? Has republican areas received any form of extra financing thanks to the ira ceasefire, before they decommisioned weapons?

The timescale for decommissioning was set for 2000 or 2002, I forget what one. There was also a full list for more improvement on PSNI which didnt and still hasnt happened, thus, no IRA decommissioning untill it got to its last legs. Republicans themselves havent recieved any finance the way the UDA have but there probably has been a bit of growth in republican areas (like the falls road) FOR decommissioning. I'm not sure. It looks the same to me as it did last summer.

[mactalla]

Maidin mhaith a dhaoine uaisle.

An Fear Dubh, I don’t want to smack anybody, its not my style. *G*

Jim….I get the message. Politics is slimy business. It stinks, but that’s the way it is sometimes.

Wasp…God love ya. You’re hanging in there very nicely against superior numbers. *G* I would like to see some of your fellow unionists weigh in, just so I didn’t feel like we were ganging up on you.

Seriously, I appreciate the fact that you feel everyone should decommission, full stop. I would say, though, that the loyalist paramilitaries have had the same amount of time to decommission as the Provos. I mean, have they been living under a rock for the past ten years? Also, let us not forget, there have been a few delays in the whole process which put the timetable back.

Did the Provos drag their feet a bit….sure they did. All parties are taking their sweet time, but as Jim eluded….sin é an chaoí (that’s how it is).

[Harry]

If the UPRG ever recieve the political mandate that SF have then the pressure will be increased on the UDA. The UDA still have no real political voice and the UPRG only act as an advisory body them and as such have no real control on the organisation if the truth be told.

I don't believe for a second that the IRA have no weapons, i don't believe for a second that they destroyed everything they had and AFD speaks alot of sense when he says how we became so obsessed with IRA decomissioning that we actually give SF more power to play with as they could demand concessions for giving up their arsenal.

I understand your frustrations but don't expect any moves soon from any Loyalist groups. Increased dissident activity on the republican side only eases the pressure on Loyalists not to disarm.

SF should not be allowed to sit in government while they represent an armed terrorist organisation, the IRA have publically created the circumstances which allow SF to take up their role. The PUP being in government while the UVF still have weapons is double standards and i can't explain how it is fair cos it isn't.

[mactalla]

harry said:

If the UPRG ever recieve the political mandate that SF have then the pressure will be increased on the UDA. The UDA still have no real political voice and the UPRG only act as an advisory body them and as such have no real control on the organisation if the truth be told.

I don't believe for a second that the IRA have no weapons, i don't believe for a second that they destroyed everything they had and AFD speaks alot of sense when he says how we became so obsessed with IRA decomissioning that we actually give SF more power to play with as they could demand concessions for giving up their arsenal.

I understand your frustrations but don't expect any moves soon from any Loyalist groups. Increased dissident activity on the republican side only eases the pressure on Loyalists not to disarm.

SF should not be allowed to sit in government while they represent an armed terrorist organisation, the IRA have publically created the circumstances which allow SF to take up their role. The PUP being in government while the UVF still have weapons is double standards and i can't explain how it is fair cos it isn't.

WOW. There is a massive gap in thought, here (not your thought, Harry....republican/loyalist thought). Harry I need to think about this, and not just react. Give me a little while. *G*

[Wasp]

Is it fair that members of the ira council have been nominated as ministers etc?