Messages

Peace in a United Ireland.

Yes, an end to British interference in Irish affairs and an accountable, impartial police service.

Thanks for caring about my wellbeing. It's impossible to keep everyone happy but justice and freedom from harassment/ interference would help. Why should it be a role reversal - nationalists/ republicans coming as they have from a history of injustice have repeatedly held out the hand of frienship to the unionist/ loyalist side -  catholic, protestant and dissenter / green, white and gold.

What about my questions, why were you stopped? Why are innocent people getting stopped now?  Should we turn a blind eye because we are not the "others"?

Whether you like it or not Milltown it is being sold to you and you are buying in big time. Why are there people getting stopped, why were you stopped every day? You see thats part of the line you are swallowing too ie that all so called dissidents approve of armed struggle and violence. Many don't but because they don't toe the line like the uncle toms they are vilified. 

That's how it's being sold to you Milltown, you're supposed to be feel great (the peace process feelgood factor) now that you (or your children) are not being harassed any more. I'd call freedom from harassment a basic human right, along with housing, employment etc. 

There have always been people who fit into your category, the " as long as I'm OK things are great".  But what of those (and their children) who are still being stopped every day, don't they matter, should we turn a blind eye now that we are not the "others" you speak of.

Naive??

So the NI Assembly isn't backed by the Brits?

Aren't republicans still suffering day and daily,stop and search,  persecuted by the courts, beaten in Maghaberry?

You're the one in fantasy land if you think things have changed.

[1973]

I'm not as young as you may think.

In 1973, the British government proposed a 78-member Northern Ireland Assembly, to be elected by proportional representation. They would retain control over law and order, and a Council of Ireland would give the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland a voice in each other's affairs. This assembly was to replace the suspended Stormont Parliament.

Elections for the new assembly were held and the agreement was supported by the nationalist SDLP, the UUP and the Alliance Party. The pro-agreement parties won a clear majority of seats (52 to 26).

Republicans boycotted the elections, and the IRA continued its campaign of opposition throughout the outcome.

I await your usual mismash, fudged reply.

[are we not on the path to re-unification]

Yeah real dough heads, when we all know that the H Blocks have been smashed and re-unification is imminent. 

Can't you even wait until the cause of the fire is confirmed before doing your masters bidding i.e. black propaganda, divide and conquer.

well are the H blocks still being used?
are we not on the path to re-unification - certainly more iminent than at the time of the H blocks - thanks to the Hunger strikers and the work of a lot of good people in breaking down the sectarian 'establishment' !

if it turns out that it wasnt dissidents then fine, otherwise if it was my point stands (and stands for their motive for all their activities).

Administering British rule is hardly the path to re-unification.  How, in your opinion, did they break down the establishment?

Yeah real dough heads, when we all know that the H Blocks have been smashed and re-unification is imminent. 

Can't you even wait until the cause of the fire is confirmed before doing your masters bidding i.e. black propaganda, divide and conquer.

[ablaze]

Seems Boucher Road shops were ablaze last night, more people unemployed leading up to Christmas, that's a sure fire way to gaining a United Ireland. Whats next?

though no one has claimed it so maybe jumping the gun a bit

Very good.

anyhow enough of praising sf and adams.
in short I dont think adams is the man to lead a modern sf.

Could ye not coax John Hume out of retirement.

Safe in the knowledge that he has played his part in securing the Union, Gerry wants to embark on his next major project, Ireland's re-entry into the Commonwealth.

His war was to improve conditions for ordinary folk, sadly, he failed in that respect because the movement went in a middle-class direction

Hughes never waivered in that respect,so in actual fact the movement(SF) failed him.Much in the same way as it has failed Gerry McGeough,Colin Duffy and others. 

[For your last part see Lynchbhoy's post.]

if SF accepted the principle of consent what had the armed campaign and all the suffering been for in the intervening years?

Adams wasn't alone is wishing to see the end of the armed conflict. You are conveniently separating SF and the IRA in 1986. There was no separation. SF was controlled by the IRA in 1986 and Hughes and Bradley were both members who give their support to the IRA with the Amalite and SF with the ballot box. Of course the Brits were made aware of the IRA's strategy as it involved their input. If they didn't know Adams and others were looking to steer towards politics away from the war there would have been no point to the strategy. If the IRA thought that the Brits the Brits weren't interested in steering themselves away from war it never would have ended either.

SF walked into politics with open eyes. Electoral success is a means to an end not an end in itself. With the absence of war (which we both accept was part of the intended direction) it leaves only politics. it's not possible to ignore the issue of consent when you are in politics. If you ignore the consent of the people then you are not involved in politics and therefore either dissapear or return to war. As ending the war was an objective there is no reason to return, it has been 'ring fenced'.

For your last part see Lynchbhoy's post.

The intervening years I am referring to are 1986 - 1994. Your assertion that the IRA controlled SF in 1986 is untrue.

Brendan Hughes was released from jail 1986.  He returned to a key role within the republican movement. By then Adams had risen to yet another prominent position within Sinn Fein. Hughes set about reinvigorating a weakened and highly compromised IRA structure, only to find that it had been intentionally run down.

How can you give your support to  a policy of Armalite and Ballot Box when there is (soon to be) no Armalite?  Don't swallow the party line listen to the man's own words.

Lynchboy can't see past 1969, why don't you answer my question, if SF accepted the principle of consent (1986) what was the armed campaign and all the suffering  for in the intervening years (1994)?

[if you cast your mind back or look back at the history books, the fightback started because the Irish/catholic/nationalist/working class community just wouldnt take it any more]

no harm to you , but plenty such as yourself have been somehow convinced that this was the main reason for war and fighting etc etc.
The request for reunification came about as it was seen as a solutin to the problem - not the requirement.

if you cast your mind back or look back at the history books, the fightback started because the Irish/catholic/nationalist/working class community just wouldnt take it any more and like the civil rights movements in other countries - rose up against the persecution and oppression.
when this was met with violence, they responded eventually with violence.

The objective was to end such systematic persecution, oppression, inequality, second class citizenship etc etc.

Hughes (I dont know much about bradley) was a man of war. that was his 'talent'. He couldnt really do 'peace' imo. Certainly he didnt give me that impression when I spoke to him.

Yes in 1641,1798,1916,1956 or does the history of our country and it's illegal occupation by Britain begin in 1969.

Getting a raw deal in negotiations is is a matter of opinion. Expecting a United Ireland in return for an end to the armed struggle is crazy.

So they are angry at Adams as Ireland is still divided? I think that's a little unreasonable.

As far back as 1986 the British state was made aware of the likely direction in which Adams wished to steer the republican project. What concerned Hughes, Bradley and many others is the fact that SF entered into 'negotiations' full in the knowledge that strategic theatre was already set.

SF were to be encouraged into constitutional politics while facing no limits on their political growth in the North, so long as every concession ceded by the British was ring fenced in by the consent principle, long described by SF as the 'unionist veto '.

Anger is not an emotion which filters through in writings, instead one gets a feeling of the desolation they felt because, if SF accepted the principle of consent what had the armed campaign and all the suffering been for in the intervening years?

On the contrary, both fully endorsed the notion of peace.  However they had serious misgivings about the leaderships willingness to settle for something far less than they had demanded from the outset of the campaign, and at the end far less than they had demanded at the outset of the peace process. A key republican demand, unity, the demand which defined republicanism, had been cast aside.