Hey It is up to us to make this news group interesting. So i shall do my wee bit now.
Let's start up a discussion then.
What do people think is the way forward for the Northern Ireland peace process? Do you think Mo Mowlam will come up with a suitable peace settlement by Thursday? (I personally don't). And do you think there will ever be PEACE in Ulster?
This is all something I feel very strongly about. I will be moving to NI in 6 months time, adn love the place so much despite all the troubles.
Please let me know your opinions of the way forward, or if there is one?
Anna Bryant <a...@bryant1.xxxxxxxxx.co.uk> wrote in article <tLYtbGAVDAK1I...@bryant1.demon.co.uk>...
> Hey > It is up to us to make this news group interesting. So i shall do my > wee bit now.
> Let's start up a discussion then.
> What do people think is the way forward for the Northern Ireland peace > process? Do you think Mo Mowlam will come up with a suitable peace > settlement by Thursday? (I personally don't). And do you think there > will ever be PEACE in Ulster?
There will not be a peace settlement. Isai 59:8 (DBY) the way of peace they know not, and there is no judgment in their goings; they have made their paths crooked: whoso goeth therein knoweth not peace. Jere 6:14 (DBY) And they have healed the breach of the daughter of my people lightly, saying, Peace, peace! when there is no peace.
> This is all something I feel very strongly about. I will be moving to > NI in 6 months time, adn love the place so much despite all the > troubles.
Actualy despite the "troubles" NI has less crime than any other part of the UK
> Please let me know your opinions of the way forward, or if there is one?
There is a way to peace. Psal 119:165 (DBY) Great peace have they that love thy law, and nothing doth stumble them.
I have been thinking about what it means to have peace in Northern Ireland, and have realised that it is not as simple as that.
We have to ask ourselves first...
WHAT IS PEACE?
Do we mean no more fighting, no more tension, and no more lives lost? Or do we mean when both sides are happy?
All the MPs are doing what they can, but this is to achieve political peace. This doesn;t necessarily mean that everyone will be made happy. It will probably take years for this, whatever they decide on. And even then will people won't be completely happy. Will they have what they are fighting for?
I personally think this is impossible. There is a major conflict of interests. Like two sides of a coin. It will only be when the sides realise they won;t get exactly what they want, and they agree to compromise that there will be a proper peace settlement. But there is a long way until people are ready for this. This is something they have been fighting for years, something their families and ancestors too. They will have to give up so much of themselves and who they are until there is complete peace there.
And I don;t think they can do it alone. This is where they need God's help. There is a long way, but we can all pray God will have mercy on the land and help save it.
I think, You are absolutely right: people in Northern Ireland will have to - and have started to - ralise that neither side can get the whole cake, they have to share it. And they have realised they can't get peace by means of war. They will have to come to terms with the fact that "the grounds our fathers ploughed in, the soil it is the same - and the places where we say our prayers have just got different names" as in the song "There Were Roses": Whenever they turn to God for their interest they have to remember that God is One. I included the Northern Ireland parties in the intercessions in a service in Essen (Germany) last Sunday, and I will do so again on Easter Monday in Friedrichsthal, whatever the outcome of the talks tonight will be.
Olaf Ruhl Dudweiler-Saar - ** A glezele lekhayim es shat nit nemen haynt! **
But I know that this is not the peace *I* wanted, this is a democratic society and the majority of this country have been forced into dealing with terrorists, what happened to the voteing system were we could vote on the future of our country?
You want your own way in this world? well get a gun and kill people for 29 years, then you will have two governments at your mercy. Ally, a...@zetnet.net http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/aonion/
Peace is something which Ian Paisley is frightened of! That spawn of satan who claims to represent Christians is indirectly responsible for more murders in Northern Ireland than any other individual. I hope the cunt burns forever in hell!!
So are you saying that the this peace agreement came about because the terrorists fought for it. I don't think so! The parties who represent these organisations are a small minority and let's face it, they must be given credit for their stand.
So you condone the murdering violence of the terrorists do you. How can you lay the blame on a person who has not lifted a gun. So what you are saying is, the likes of the IRA are children of God? Where are you coming from?
<H.Walms...@btinternet.com> wrote: >Peace is something which Ian Paisley is frightened of! That spawn of satan >who claims to represent Christians is indirectly responsible for more >murders in Northern Ireland than any other individual. I hope the cunt >burns forever in hell!!
He might as well have pulled the trigger himself. Mr. Paisley has incited young Protestants to violence ever since he started spouting his political/religious crap in the early 70's. Of course I'm not calling the IRA the children of God. I've worn HM Forces uniform in the past and am proud to have done so. I don't think I would call people who would rejoice in my or my colleagues death 'children of God'. I think I'm in a better position that many, probably including yourself, to have an opinion on the outcome of the talks. I was brought up in a Protestant evangelical family and had religion shoved down my throat from an early age, and was taught that Roman Catholics were not to be trusted and had a hatred for Nationalists bred into me. I am now married to a Roman Catholic and am able to make my own decisions, and can tell you one thing I am certain of is that Mr. Paisley and his gang of religious zealots are doing satan's work for him in N. Ireland if they reject the historic agreement reached on Good Friday
STEPHEN KJELLGREN <ora...@gateway.net.au> wrote in article <6gpecq$68...@news.iinet.net.au>...
> So you condone the murdering violence of the terrorists do you. How can you > lay the blame on a person who has not lifted a gun. So what you are saying > is, the likes of the IRA are children of God? Where are you coming from?
<H.Walms...@btinternet.com> wrote: >Peace is something which Ian Paisley is frightened of! That spawn of satan >who claims to represent Christians is indirectly responsible for more >murders in Northern Ireland than any other individual. I hope the c*** >(edited for decencys sake) >burns forever in hell!!
I take it that you are a nationalist supporter, what did Ian Paisley ever do to you in person that justifies what you said about him?? The people who deserve to burn in hell are the terrorists who have held this country to ransom for years.
Personally I think the majority of people in NI will vote to accept the deal that has been struck, whether that is for better or worse remains to be seen. But if it is for better as we all hope then at least our children might get a chance to know what true peace is.
JH wrote in message <3530aecc.1503...@news.zetnet.co.uk>... >On 11 Apr 1998 14:51:46 GMT, "Harold Walmsley" ><H.Walms...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>Peace is something which Ian Paisley is frightened of! That spawn of satan >>who claims to represent Christians is indirectly responsible for more >>murders in Northern Ireland than any other individual. I hope the c*** >>(edited for decencys sake) >>burns forever in hell!!
>I take it that you are a nationalist supporter, what did Ian Paisley >ever do to you in person that justifies what you said about him?? The >people who deserve to burn in hell are the terrorists who have held >this country to ransom for years.
>Personally I think the majority of people in NI will vote to accept >the deal that has been struck, whether that is for better or worse >remains to be seen. But if it is for better as we all hope then at >least our children might get a chance to know what true peace is.
I believe that this kind of short-term-ism will land northern Ireland and possibly the whole island into the same predicament as the Balkans within 2 or 3 years.
In article <3530aecc.1503...@news.zetnet.co.uk>, JH <the.d...@xzetnet.co.uk> writes
>I take it that you are a nationalist supporter, what did Ian Paisley >ever do to you in person that justifies what you said about him?? The >people who deserve to burn in hell are the terrorists who have held >this country to ransom for years.
Harold's argument is actually fairly correct. Ian Paisley spent his time whipping up loyalist anger, and every time it exploded he stepped casually out of the way so as not to get involved in the flak. -- Brendan Heading (brendan dot heading at cableol dot co dot uk) ===Please remove the spamguard to reply==== NB : I am a spokesman for *no* organisation or movement. "Growth for it's own sake is the ideology of a cancer" - Edward Abbey
JH wrote: > I take it that you are a nationalist supporter, what did Ian Paisley > ever do to you in person that justifies what you said about him?? The > people who deserve to burn in hell are the terrorists who have held > this country to ransom for years.
Oh, so you assume just because I see Paisley for what he really is, then I must be a Nationalist. Actually I support Mr. Trimble's very courageous stand and am definately not a Nationalist. I am an ex-member of the security forces and proud to have worn the Crown uniform for many years. And anyway, I don't believe in hell!
In article <bX6e1MAjMLM1E...@cableol.co.YouKay>, Brendan Heading <brendan.head...@cableol.co.You.Kay> writes
>In article <3530aecc.1503...@news.zetnet.co.uk>, JH ><the.d...@xzetnet.co.uk> writes >>I take it that you are a nationalist supporter, what did Ian Paisley >>ever do to you in person that justifies what you said about him?? The >>people who deserve to burn in hell are the terrorists who have held >>this country to ransom for years.
>Harold's argument is actually fairly correct. Ian Paisley spent his time >whipping up loyalist anger, and every time it exploded he stepped >casually out of the way so as not to get involved in the flak.
I was interested to hear that when Paisley turned up at Stormont on Friday he was booed by a crowd of supporters of the loyalist paramilitaries, there to support their negotiators in the talks.
-- John Fisher j...@drummond.demon.co.uk jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk Drummond is an independent site; its opinions are my own
In article <N4d2ICA41SM1E...@drummond.demon.co.uk>, John Fisher <j...@drummond.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Harold's argument is actually fairly correct. Ian Paisley spent his time >>whipping up loyalist anger, and every time it exploded he stepped >>casually out of the way so as not to get involved in the flak.
>I was interested to hear that when Paisley turned up at Stormont on >Friday he was booed by a crowd of supporters of the loyalist >paramilitaries, there to support their negotiators in the talks.
Yes. Those people who were there when Paisley turned up at Stormont on Thursday night were the people who, 30 years ago, listened to all of his rants and believed them. As David Ervine put it in response : "I've been there, I've seen it, I've done it, I bought the T-Shirt". A lot of the loyalists who committed crimes after acting on Paisley's words have today matured and taken a grasp of real politics. Hence the response to Paisley by the PUP supporters on Thursday.
-- Brendan Heading (brendan dot heading at cableol dot co dot uk) ===Please remove the spamguard to reply==== NB : I am a spokesman for *no* organisation or movement. "Growth for it's own sake is the ideology of a cancer" - Edward Abbey
The message <352dfd53.5025...@news.zetnet.co.uk> from a...@zetnet.net (Ally) contains these words:
> What is peace? good question. > But I know that this is not the peace *I* wanted, this is a > democratic society and the majority of this country have been forced > into dealing with terrorists, what happened to the voteing system were > we could vote on the future of our country? > You want your own way in this world? well get a gun and kill people > for 29 years, then you will have two governments at your mercy. > Ally, > a...@zetnet.net > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/aonion/
I must agree with Ally. As a voter who believes/believed in the democratic process this whole saga has left me staggered by the ease in which the Gov. has ignored the wishes of the electorate. Where else in the world would put up with it.
The message <01bd655b$283f2c60$683763c3@preinstalledcom> from "Harold Walmsley" <H.Walms...@btinternet.com> contains these words:
> So are you saying that the this peace agreement came about because the > terrorists fought for it. I don't think so! The parties who represent these > organisations are a small minority and let's face it, they must be given > credit for their stand.
They should be given "Credit" I think not. What we must ask ourselves is what forced them to negotiate, instead of murder to attain their aims. The fact that three decades of murder and genocide didn't work, and an increasingly disillusioned membership forced their hands to consider an adjustment of strategy.
> In article <N4d2ICA41SM1E...@drummond.demon.co.uk>, John Fisher > <j...@drummond.demon.co.uk> writes > >>Harold's argument is actually fairly correct. Ian Paisley spent his time > >>whipping up loyalist anger, and every time it exploded he stepped > >>casually out of the way so as not to get involved in the flak.
> >I was interested to hear that when Paisley turned up at Stormont on > >Friday he was booed by a crowd of supporters of the loyalist > >paramilitaries, there to support their negotiators in the talks. > Yes. Those people who were there when Paisley turned up at Stormont on > Thursday night were the people who, 30 years ago, listened to all of his > rants and believed them. As David Ervine put it in response : "I've been > there, I've seen it, I've done it, I bought the T-Shirt". A lot of the > loyalists who committed crimes after acting on Paisley's words have > today matured and taken a grasp of real politics. Hence the response to > Paisley by the PUP supporters on Thursday. > -- > Brendan Heading (brendan dot heading at cableol dot co dot uk) > ===Please remove the spamguard to reply==== > NB : I am a spokesman for *no* organisation or movement. > "Growth for it's own sake is the ideology of a cancer" > - Edward Abbey
It could also be said that these people who you call supporters of the Loyalist delegates, were venting their anger on the DUP because they ironically see them as too liberal. Paisley practiced brinksmanship, and was undoubtedly a gifted orator but I do not believe he is as good at leading as he is talking. John is right when he said that Paisley stepped aside when times were rough, this is what causes the friction between his party and the other Loyalist groups. Many of the PUP/UDP supporters view themselves as having made sacrifices for their belief (however misguided) What happened at the news conference was a form of resentment towards a man and a party who they would regard as whose words have spoken louder than their actions.
In article <01bd6608$df0ec2e0$023b63c3@preinstalledcom>, "Harold Walmsley" <H.Walms...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> He might as well have pulled the trigger himself. Mr. Paisley has incited > young Protestants to violence ever since he started spouting his > political/religious crap in the early 70's.
He's been doing it for a hell of a lot longer than that. He was beating the drum in the 50's moaning about the awful crime that Catholic families were living in traditionally Protestant area. Ona few occasions, he actually gave these addresses to loyalist rabble. Of course, he accepted no responsibility when these addresses were attacked. The Catholics in question had done no wrong, except presume that they would be tolerated.
Laochra
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
From downunder, one gets the view that Paisley is more interested in sowing discord than peace, yet uses the authority of Christian ministry which is based on love of God and Neighbour. Is this not incongruous?
If he wants to be a combatant instead of a peacemaker, doesn't he deserve that someone sticks a cracker up his rectum to help him come to his senses.
In all honesty why would a sane person want to follow the way of continued agro when there is an opportunity for a peaceful coexistence
Brendan Heading wrote: > In article <N4d2ICA41SM1E...@drummond.demon.co.uk>, John Fisher > <j...@drummond.demon.co.uk> writes > >>Harold's argument is actually fairly correct. Ian Paisley spent his time > >>whipping up loyalist anger, and every time it exploded he stepped > >>casually out of the way so as not to get involved in the flak.
> >I was interested to hear that when Paisley turned up at Stormont on > >Friday he was booed by a crowd of supporters of the loyalist > >paramilitaries, there to support their negotiators in the talks.
> Yes. Those people who were there when Paisley turned up at Stormont on > Thursday night were the people who, 30 years ago, listened to all of his > rants and believed them. As David Ervine put it in response : "I've been > there, I've seen it, I've done it, I bought the T-Shirt". A lot of the > loyalists who committed crimes after acting on Paisley's words have > today matured and taken a grasp of real politics. Hence the response to > Paisley by the PUP supporters on Thursday.
> -- > Brendan Heading (brendan dot heading at cableol dot co dot uk) > ===Please remove the spamguard to reply==== > NB : I am a spokesman for *no* organisation or movement. > "Growth for it's own sake is the ideology of a cancer" > - Edward Abbey
<brendan.head...@cableol.co.You.Kay> wrote: >In article <N4d2ICA41SM1E...@drummond.demon.co.uk>, John Fisher ><j...@drummond.demon.co.uk> writes >>>Harold's argument is actually fairly correct. Ian Paisley spent his time >>>whipping up loyalist anger, and every time it exploded he stepped >>>casually out of the way so as not to get involved in the flak.
>>I was interested to hear that when Paisley turned up at Stormont on >>Friday he was booed by a crowd of supporters of the loyalist >>paramilitaries, there to support their negotiators in the talks.
>Yes. Those people who were there when Paisley turned up at Stormont on >Thursday night were the people who, 30 years ago, listened to all of his >rants and believed them. As David Ervine put it in response : "I've been >there, I've seen it, I've done it, I bought the T-Shirt". A lot of the >loyalists who committed crimes after acting on Paisley's words have >today matured and taken a grasp of real politics. Hence the response to >Paisley by the PUP supporters on Thursday.
Was that press conference a model for the future? I'm no fan of any brand of loyalism but it looked to me like someone tried to get their political views over to the media, and was shouted down by those who felt that morality and "the majority" were on their side. And this shouting down has been commonly taken as a good thing, a deserved counterblast to an incorrigible bigot. Well, bigot he may be, but I don't see how anybody's democratic rights, whatever their views, are well served by this.
>> Was that press conference a model for the future? I'm no fan of any >> brand of loyalism but it looked to me like someone tried to get their >> political views over to the media, and was shouted down by those who >> felt that morality and "the majority" were on their side. And this >> shouting down has been commonly taken as a good thing, a deserved >> counterblast to an incorrigible bigot. Well, bigot he may be, but I >> don't see how anybody's democratic rights, whatever their views, are >> well served by this.
>Oh I dunno. It's mistakenly traeing Paisley and such as honorary decent >human beings (by virtue of being elected) that has got us into this mess. >The more opprobrium, loathing and derision heaped on his head, the better.
But surely only so much shit will stay heaped on his admittedly broad and flat head? The rest will "trickle down" in great quantities onto the people who have repeatedly voted him the most popular politician in the North. When they shouted down Paisley, they also shouted down the people who elected him. Is the disenfranchisement of those people the price for bringing "peace" to Ireland? Bearing in mind that the latest phase of the conflict erupted over the rights of people who were denied a say in the running of the state, doesn't this bode very ill for the future?
In article <3535E3FA.1F26A...@vicnet.net.au>, Brian E. Gleeson <bglee...@vicnet.net.au> writes
>From downunder, one gets the view that Paisley is more interested in sowing >discord than peace, yet uses the authority of Christian ministry which is >based on love of God and Neighbour. Is this not incongruous?
So what's new. That's always been his style. He's one of the church's biggest hypocrites.
>If he wants to be a combatant instead of a peacemaker, doesn't he deserve that >someone sticks a cracker up his rectum to help him come to his senses.
That wouldn't help achieve the goal you mention, but would be a worthwhile sendoff to an old fart who's always been nothing but a loud mouthed bigot.
>In all honesty why would a sane person want to follow the way of continued >agro when there is an opportunity for a peaceful coexistence
You are naive to the "mentality" of the macho warrier.
So people that post to this group have different opinions. People are different and have different views about what Northern Ireland’s future should be. Ian Paisley believes that the proposal that will be put to the people in 6 weeks time will fail. Shall we wait till the people of Northern Ireland decide their fete and not the rest of the world? A new concept Democracy.
I’m surprised that so many in this group condemn Paisley. He is not a representative of any paramilitary organisation or terrorist group. Gerry Adams is the political representative of the Sinn Fein and people seem to be congratulating him on the part he has taken in the so-called peace process. I suggest to Paisley he join and represent a Protestant militant group and he to, may be seen as a peacemaker. Then again he is not capable of stooping to such a level.
