“I haven’t had any cause whatsoever to be in touch..”

One of the problems with the deputy First Minister’s attempts to dismiss the issue of the Provisional IRA, as reported in the Irish Times today [subs req]..

“The IRA have left the stage, they are totally and utterly out of the equation. “Any attempt to drag them back on to the stage is a big mistake.” Asked about the IRA army council, Mr McGuinness said he did not even know if it still existed. “I don’t believe that the DUP would have come into Government with Sinn Féin on May 8th last year if they thought that the IRA army council represented a threat to the institutions.” When it was put to him that some unionists and others might find it risible that he did not know whether the IRA army council was still in being, Mr McGuinness said his focus was on Government in Northern Ireland. “I haven’t had any cause whatsoever to be in touch with the IRA about anything in the course of the recent while.”

.. is that “P O’Neill” has continued to issue statements on behalf of “the leadership of Óglaigh na hÉireann”. Another is that both the Regional Development Minister, Sinn Féin’s Conor Murphy, and his party’s president, Gerry Adams, have by their own admission had cause “to be in touch” with them. It could just be that temporary blindness again..

, , , ,

  • Ahem

    And just for the record, the next time a MOPEr comes along and wonders why Unionists don’t exactly trust Republicans, we have the immortal, truthful words of Murderin’ Mart: he, he tells us, doesn’t even know whether or not the Provos’ “Army Council” ‘still exists. And if he can tell us that with that a straight face, it’s no wonder he’s gulled you lot so well for so long on the old touting front.

  • PeaceandJustice

    A unrepentant terrorist murderer doesn’t know if the terrorist council he belongs to still exists. He will have to stop telling lies soon. It’s the least his victims deserve. Time for the Truth.

  • joeCanuck

    The IRA could have been but a minor problem – the B.T. reported yesterday that Belfast was on the A-Bomb target list during the Cold War. What they didn’t say was whether it was on the English or Russian list!

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    Is is understandable from a Unionist point of view why these words should cause such mistrust of SF.

    Although I personally think that the SF line “I know they havent gone away but I dont if they exist” just makes Martin & Co sound silly but I think from a Nationlaist’s viewpoint that as the IRA is a secret organsiation and association with it may have legal and political implications then this is a line that they can at least understand.

  • “Asked about the IRA army council, Mr McGuinness said he did not even know if it still existed.”

    If Martin’s nose was like Pinnochio’s, he could be sitting in his Stormont office and the end of his hooter would be somewhere past Dundalk.

  • PeaceandJustice

    It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it – “from a Nationlaist’s viewpoint .. as the IRA is a secret organsiation and association with it may have legal and political implications then this is a line that they can at least understand.”

    The point about this terrorist is that he demands the truth from everyone else yet continues with his lies. His victims have not got justice. His victims have not got the truth. His victims have not even got an apology. Yet his friends in the media allow him to get away with the so-called campaigns for truth and justice without any real questioning. He has already caused physical harm to many families. He should stop continuing to hurt them by his constant stream of lies.

  • IRIA

    How would anyone prove/disprove that the IRA Army Council was disbanded, if they said they would? This whole discussion is another DUP straw man argument.

  • Briso

    Posted by Ahem on May 06, 2008 @ 11:29 AM
    And just for the record, the next time a MOPEr comes along and wonders why Unionists don’t exactly trust Republicans, we have the immortal, truthful words of Murderin’ Mart: he, he tells us, doesn’t even know whether or not the Provos’ “Army Council” ‘still exists. And if he can tell us that with that a straight face, it’s no wonder he’s gulled you lot so well for so long on the old touting front.

    And does your belief he was secretly working for the good guys all along increase or decrease your respect for him?

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    PeaceandJustice,

    I think that Nationalists are quite tolerant of this doublespeak for the reasons given and elected them into office because they accept this doublespeak as part and parcel of what you are likely to get if put insurgents ( former ) into governement.

    But I agree with you on SF/Provos not having it both ways. I think the British have been forthcoming in relation to Bloody Sunday and although they have more questions to answer it is reasonable for them and Unionists to say that it is SF/Provos turn.

  • Steve

    Sammy What
    I think the British have been forthcoming in relation to Bloody Sunday

    If they have been so forth coming why not release the non redacted report prepared but not released?

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    Steve,

    I’m not suggesting that every aspect of the Bloody Sunday enquiry is to my liking – I’m suggesting the British have made a pretty good and expensive start to the process of answering the numerous questions outstanding after the ‘troubles’.

    We need to see some siginificant good faith from the other side of the fence i.e. Martin, Grizzly & Co – after all we would not be very impressed if General Sir Mike Jackson claimed for example he had never set foot in Non Iron.

  • Ahem

    Far from thinking he was working for the good guys all along, I actually think he latterly became a compromised asset of the Smileyesque grey people.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    Again and again the pro-Britishers bandy about this word ‘terrorist’ but imagine this. I,as a non-unionist nationalist, am driving along mid Armagh in the 1980’s and I am stopped on a lonely road at night by a UDR patrol. Am I not filled with terror? Have I not good cause to be? Imagine I am stopped in similar circumstances by an IRA patrol in E Tyrone. I am not terrified because I know I will come to no harm. Who is the terrorist? It’s all relevant, isn’t it?

  • Ahem

    You’re certainly ‘filled’ of something alright.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    ……….. filled ‘with’ not ‘of’. Witty but not a response.

  • PeaceandJustice

    Pancho’s Horse – “Imagine I am stopped in similar circumstances by an IRA patrol in E Tyrone. I am not terrified because I know I will come to no harm.”

    They normally don’t harm their own. Of course you’re not comparing like with like. Martin’s Sinn Fein PIRA terrorists would have kidnapped, tortured and then murdered some innocent person whose politics they disagreed with. In contrast I recall Sinn Fein PIRA members complaining about how they were delayed at UDR checkpoints.

    Murderer Martin McGuinness needs to start telling the truth if he’s serious about moving forward. It would be nice if senior members of the Roman Catholic church also called on him to tell the truth. They are not normally shy about dabbling in such issues.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    I’m not making comparisons. I’m saying that who you view as a terrorist depends where you are coming from. Anybody who fills me with terror is a terrorist in my book.You would probably feel happier meeting a UDR patrol (as long as you weren’t a musician!)And if you know Martin McGuinness to be involved in murder, why don’t you go to the PSNI with your valuable information – but even they might need proof.

  • PeaceandJustice

    To Pancho’s Horse – actually you were making comparisons. But it’s good you now realise that you can’t compare getting delayed at a UDR checkpoint with getting abducted, tortured and murdered by Sinn Fein PIRA. You should now stop making excuses for Martin McGuinness and his Sinn Fein PIRA death squads.

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    PeaceandJustice,

    would you describe what happened to the Miami showband as being delayed?

  • PeaceandJustice

    To ‘It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it’. Of course not. Those sort of incidents were the exception which proved the rule i.e. several people served long jail terms for that attack. In contrast, the majority of Roman Catholics have voted in terrorists like Martin McGuinness – even though the dogs in the street know about his involvement with the Sinn Fein PIRA death squads.

  • Briso

    Posted by Ahem on May 06, 2008 @ 03:38 PM
    >Far from thinking he was working for the good guys all along, I actually think he latterly
    >became a compromised asset of the Smileyesque grey people.

    You British, you mean. Aren’t you the good guys? He has either destroyed the IRA from within and conned them meekly into an internal British settlement with tremendous personal cunning and bravery or he is an unrepentant and cold-blooded hardline IRA man who is deviously continuing his war by other means and intends to destroy the union from within. I’m just trying to work out the party line. It surely can’t be both…

  • Right, Briso, and the reason the Brits and their supporters cannot clear up the contradiction is because it would involve clearing up the whole
    ‘Steak knife’ question.

    Clearly, Martin McGuinness is not he but the securocrats keep contending so in order to protect who he really is – the youth who got so disillusioned by the murders of those three Scots Fusilers back in the early 1970s that he became a tout, and doesn’t look anything like Freddie Scappaticci aka ‘Stake knife’ now.

    And many posters know my answer to the question, so I need not repeat it.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    “Peace and Justice”, you are very dismissive of the murders carried out by the RUC/UDR both in and out of uniform. Few bad apples – what? And if the dogs in the street know all about Martin McGuinness why don’t the PSNI who are miles smarter than the dogs. If all your wild allegations are true then the British (your masters) are aware of them and do nothing preferring to let him into government rather than have another Canary Wharf. That’s not too honest, is it? Do you support that?

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    PeaceandJustice,

    but presumably you would agree it is difficult to quantify the extent of UDR collusion and direct involvement in many sectarian killings which may have occurred out of uniform and on behalf of loyalist paramilitary organisations?

    Martin, Grizzly and Co as were involved in the insurgency and the killings they took part in/planned were in large part the official policy of the IRA. The Nationalist people voted for them because they at least sympathised with the IRA’s objectives if not their methods.

    I think the understandable problem for Unionists is that the state (UK) to which many gave their lives and allegiance appears to view those who fought against them (the Provos) in an objective and detached manner and acgtually legitimises the insurgency by insisting that they have the right to be in government.

  • PeaceandJustice

    Pancho’s Horse – “preferring to let [Martin McGuinness] into government rather than have another Canary Wharf.”

    It’s called appeasement. You also seem happy with that but want everything on the other side investigated in great detail with people held to account.

    ‘It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it’ – “it is difficult to quantify the extent of UDR collusion”

    There have been a few well highlighted incidents which Pan-Nationalists repeat ad infinitum. The vast majority of Unionists say they were wrong and many of the people served time in prison.

    ‘It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it’ – “The Nationalist people voted for them because they at least sympathised with the IRA’s objectives if not their methods.”

    You make it sound like the voters have had no choice. The SDLP had similiar objectives without murdering people. Roman Catholics have chosen murdering terrorists like McGuinness as their representatives and name their GAA stadiums and competitions after them. Unionists have never voted in any numbers for the representatives of the UDA/UVF/LVF. I get the impression from Pan-Nationalists that they almost wish Unionists had voted for such people – to make them feel better about voting for murder by proxy.

  • It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it

    PeaceandJustice,

    I was not suggesting they had no choice who they voted for.

    I would also not suggest equivalence between Unionist and Nationalist voting – Unionists supported the status quo the and largely voted for the non parmamilitary parties and as Nationalists did not they voted for those involved in the insurgency.

    The morality of voting for the insurgents will obviously be a matter of debate with unioinists having difficulty understanding why people voted for ‘murderers’ and nationlalists ( and the British government) taking what I would describe as a more objective position.

    As mentioned above the real problem for Unionists is not so much coming to terms with Nationlaist opinions on the insurgency but more with the British one – hence their problems with the GFA which still haunts the DUP because it effectively legitimises the IRA campaign.