It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Northern Ireland Peace Plan Blocked Over Photographs

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I'm Sorry

Are they taking the PI$$?

i have just heard that the Northern Ireland peace plan was ALMOST a complete success

but, on the issue of decomissioning, Sinn Fein/IRA have said that allowing independent observers to take photographic evidence of guns and bombs being destroyed would be "humiliating"

What?!?!

is this because they dont want to destroy them? obviously!

Those guys are incredible! they get so close to a deal for a return to power for the Northern Ireland Assembly but dont want to lose the ability to double deal

its just take, take, take

I guess i should expect nothing less from Sinn fein. terrorists in suits.




posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
With all due respect to the great united kingdom , give them a little respect.
Why does america not allow people to photograpgh its strongest weapons?
Because it gives the enemy an advantage.
The IRA are cautios and untrusting of this peace process.
I don't support the killing but i do think if they want to join ireland its fine with me if they dont its a ok with me.
I like irish and nothern irish, they are good people.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   
america doesn't allow photos, true, but the weapons that would be photographed by the NI observers would be destroyed afterwards

this is not an issue of showing your enemy your strength

This is not an issue of liking or disliking the Irish, north or south

this is IRA trying to have its cake and eat it



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   
No I'm sorry I cannot agree with you Daystar.

From the language he started using it has been clear for a while that Ian Paisley has wanted these talks to fail for some time.

He could have had the IRA disband and disarm but he insisted on them "wearing sack-cloth and ashes" (his words).

He attempted to 'crown' his 'career' with the humiliation of the republican movement in Ireland.

Personally I'm glad he failed.
Now hopefully he will hurry up and die and go answer for the troubles he (in large part) ignited here in N ireland.

Maybe with that malevolent horror out of the way we'll all be able to move forward but until then I have no doubt things are on 'hold'.

I have no doubt that Paisley was never genuine in negotiating for an honourable peace at all......why would he be expected to change the habits of a lifetime?

By the way I speak as a British person living in N Ireland.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Oh dont get me wrong, paisley is also a pain in the @$$ in my opinion

but my point is; Why let a few photographs standing in the way of a half-decent chance of peace?

if you support the republican view then still you might think "Just give them the photos and shut them up so we can get to the more important issues of building a lasting peace"



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daystar
Oh dont get me wrong, paisley is also a pain in the @$$ in my opinion


- To say the least!


but my point is; Why let a few photographs standing in the way of a half-decent chance of peace?


- Because that is how they see it.

I don't but then I'm not the one anyone has to convince.

The fact is that they do and Paisley's language has done nothing to dispell that view (something I am sure he was fully aware of or informed of before making those comments).


if you support the republican view then still you might think "Just give them the photos and shut them up so we can get to the more important issues of building a lasting peace"


- Again, there's (in my view) truth in that but then I'm not one of the people anyone is trying to convince.

Given the history of this process I think whatever had been agreed something would have been found, by Paisley, to try to find a way of humiliating the Irish republican movement and wreak it all.

If it wasn't pictures it would have been some kind of 'apology' worded in a manner he'd know they could never deliver.

My bet is everyone knows this is on - once the hateful old swine hurries up and turns his toes up.

From the way he has been losing weight recently that does not look like it will be too long a wait.

This has all gone too far and people have all come a long way in all of this.
The UK, RoI, US and EU govs all know the score, however long these hiccups last the matter is one of fine detail and when and finally not 'if' at all.

That has to be welcomed and we should not lose hope IMHO.

(It's also worth bearing in mind that much of what has happened today is about the politics 'internal' to unionism in N. Ireland.

The is a school of thought (correct in my opinion) that says that Paisley's DUP were never going to agree to anything now as it would give the UUP (David Trimble's party) the ability to question DUP agreements; especially with the UK general election poll due sometime in the next 6mths or so.

The current form is for the DUP to shout long and loud about flaws they claim were evident in UUP agreements, so the last thing the DUP want is to go to the electorate with the UUP able to critice anything they might have agreed
).

[edit on 8-12-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daystar
america doesn't allow photos, true, but the weapons that would be photographed by the NI observers would be destroyed afterwards

Yeah and so would pictures in american bases yet they still wont do it.


this is not an issue of showing your enemy your strength
[/qutoe]
To them it is probably.


This is not an issue of liking or disliking the Irish, north or south
[/qutoe]
I was stateing my opinion of the situation so i would not be claimed as biased.


this is IRA trying to have its cake and eat it

Says who though?



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   
What is wrong with the destruction of the weapons being witnessed by both sides, without photographs? It seems that the destruction is the important element, not the 8X10 glossies.




posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
I don't support the killing but i do think if they want to join ireland its fine with me if they dont its a ok with me.

But the problem is that there was a vote for all the counties of ireland to saty in the kingdom or leave and form the irish republic. All the counties agreed to it except whats now Northern Ireland. So the IRA says that its b/s because so many english moved to that part of the island so long ago, and that therefore their votes don't count and it should be ceded to the republic.

So what sort of agreement is possible? If the people don't want to go, why should they be forced? Why don't the republicans just move in large numbers over there and try to force another vote? I'm sure the catholics will outbreed those anglicans anyway right? (just a joke people, just a joke)



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
He attempted to 'crown' his 'career' with the humiliation of the republican movement in Ireland.

Not for nuthin' but shouldn't the IRA be willing to humiliate themselves in order to unify the island?

You said you were english living in NI, do you want to be part of the Republic?



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 10:20 AM
link   
they might not want the weapons photographed being destroyed because they belong to individuals. or they want to sell them. or they want to hold onto them. either way, this is part of punishment they duely deserve.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
What is wrong with the destruction of the weapons being witnessed by both sides, without photographs? It seems that the destruction is the important element, not the 8X10 glossies.


- I completely agree.

There were to be independant witnesses (in addition to deChastelain and the commission people he heads), one very senior churchman from one community (the Archbishop leader of the Church of Ireland) and one from the other (a very senior Roman Catholic Bishop/Archbishop).


Originally posted by Nygdan
But the problem is that there was a vote for all the counties of ireland to saty in the kingdom or leave and form the irish republic. All the counties agreed to it except whats now Northern Ireland.


- Sorry but this is not true.

N. Ireland contained at least 2 counties with a 'nationalist' or republican majority at it's creation.

Now there are only about 2.5 counties out of the 6 with a unionist majority.


I'm sure the catholics will outbreed those anglicans anyway right?


- Oh no matey. The Paisley-ite type are nothing to do with 'anglicans'.


Not for nuthin' but shouldn't the IRA be willing to humiliate themselves in order to unify the island?


- As I said, my view is immaterial (personally I agree, they should go for it) but then I'm not the people that need persuading.


You said you were english living in NI, do you want to be part of the Republic?


- Northern Irish relations with the rest of Britain will always be so close as to be almost indistinguisable no matter what the 'official constitutional position' IMHO.

Similarly (though for obvious reasons not just quite so closely) this applies to the republic of Ireland generally and the UK.

Then there is the membership of both countries in the EU.

So all in all no.
I would feel no 'fear' or anything much if Northern Irleand became part of the republic......as I imagine, certainly in any kind of practical terms, it would be for just about everyone else.


this is part of punishment they duely deserve.


- except that it is all the people being punished by the lack of 'normal politics' here and the vast majority have nothing they deserve punishment for.

I'd just take normality instead of reprisals and punishment anyday.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
N. Ireland contained at least 2 counties with a 'nationalist' or republican majority at it's creation.

So was the cessesion issue decided on something other than a county level, or did they not want to have a british 'entity' surrounded by irish republican counties or what? IOW, if they voted to join the republic, then why didn't they join the republic? Why did britain force some to stay but let, well, anyone go?



- As I said, my view is immaterial (personally I agree, they should go for it) but then I'm not the people that need persuading.

But if the people with the power to derail everything (in this case these paisley people) aren't going to budge, then its everyones fault no? Someone has to move right? If the IRA's position is irrational, why shouldn't they be expected to change it?


So all in all no.

Interesting, haven't heard much of hte enlgish in NI position on it really. So you are expecting things to be pretty much the same if you were to become an irish citizen?.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
So was the cessesion issue decided on something other than a county level, or did they not want to have a british 'entity' surrounded by irish republican counties or what? IOW, if they voted to join the republic, then why didn't they join the republic?


- It wasn't voted upon, it was decided in negotiation.

There was an all-Ireland vote in 1919 but that was for the gov of Ireland and not about the border.


Why did britain force some to stay but let, well, anyone go?


- The unionist majority in NI threatened force of arms to remain British, Britiain didn't have to force them to stay.

The 'state' of NI was created to be large enough to be viable but also to try and establish a permanent unionist 'ascendancy'.
It failed because in trying to be big enough to be viable it included too many people who did not want to be British.


But if the people with the power to derail everything (in this case these paisley people) aren't going to budge, then its everyones fault no? Someone has to move right? If the IRA's position is irrational, why shouldn't they be expected to change it?


- Well you should bear in mind that it isn't over.

The 2 govs have published position papers this week and have said they will press on with things that have been agreed, and there is much that has.
The IRA have also issued an important and ground-breaking statement yesterday where they publicly acknowledged they were intent on ridding themselves of all arms and moving to a full peace. That is an immense step forward.

A fair bit of what is going on is also just unionist politics. This IMO is all going to happen the issue is one of timing and Paisley's DUP party aren't for going into an election next spring defending agreements with Sinn Fein when they think there is much to be made knocking Trimble's UUP and their history of actual failed agreement.

Baby steps I think is the idea. It took a long time to get where we are and it will not be done with quickly yet.


Interesting, haven't heard much of hte enlgish in NI position on it really. So you are expecting things to be pretty much the same if you were to become an irish citizen?.


- It's a funny place in that regard.

You have to remember the closeness of Irish - British relations generally and also that when the troubles started NI closed in on itself and became gradually isolated over the (nearly 30yrs) years of violence.

Rather than the links being strongest with the supposedly British part of Ireland it now means that familial links are strongest now between the republic and Britain. Huge numbers of British families now have Irish connections.

I expect that if things changed tomorrow few would notice and as for the imagined points of principle?

Well a person born in NI can hold an Irish - not British - passport if they wish and consider themselves Irish, duel citizenship is also easy. If they then move to England and register (like anyone else) with their local electoral office they are entitled to the same full voting rights as any British citizen/subject.

I see no reson why this couldn't be maintained in reverse for those who continued to see themselves as British.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
There was an all-Ireland vote in 1919 but that was for the gov of Ireland and not about the border.

Ah, well that certainly changes things doesn't it.


Why did britain force some to stay but let, well, anyone go?


- The unionist majority in NI threatened force of arms to remain British, Britiain didn't have to force them to stay.

The 'state' of NI was created to be large enough to be viable but also to try and establish a permanent unionist 'ascendancy'.
You sure it wasn't 'pre-eminence'? j/k. My understanding of the situtation has been wrong then. Glad to get something out of the discussion.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Ah, well that certainly changes things doesn't it.


- It was the all-Ireland 1919 vote (which Sinn Fein won) which has been the root of Irish republicanism' calim to legitimacy ever since.

The closest there has been to that since was the simultaneous vote north and south over the 'Good Friday Agreement'.

(which all of Ireland voted heavily in favour for)


You sure it wasn't 'pre-eminence'? j/k. My understanding of the situtation has been wrong then. Glad to get something out of the discussion.


- You're welcome.

Mind you no doubt there are other views. You might have heard the saying?

The man who claims he completely understands the situation in Ireland simply fails to understand how completely he is a fool?

It was all about 800yrs in the making so if it takes a year or two longer than expected sorting it out who's going to complain?
So long as they do, eh?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Actually ooops my bad, make that the 1918 all Ireland elections.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join