Thoughts on the Death of Osama bin Laden
By Phantom On May 2nd, 2011
We got him.
Nearly ten years ago, my city and my country suffered the worst terrorist attack in world history.
This unspeakable act impacted people from all over America. Even if you were from a small town in say Alabama, miles away from the attacks, it was as though it was your family who had lost somebody. Because you had. This was personal.
Today, US forces have finally delivered justice to the man responsible for the destruction of the building I worked in, as well as the other atrocities done on September 11, 2001.
Let’s take a moment to honor those who died nearly ten years ago. And to remember how very grim it was that day.
God bless the US Military, including the Special Forces, and the CIA, FBI, and our brothers in arms from Britain and other lands, and all in the Obama and Bush administrations who played any part in a ten year effort to deliver justice.
The mills of God grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.
God bless America.
Nicely said, Phantom.
It’s nice to wake up to good news for a change. I’m delighted for America and the world but in particular for the victims of the 9/11 attacks. Above all we can hope this action makes peace easier to achieve.
Was OBL wanted by the FBI? The answer is ‘no’, and why ‘no’ – because there was no evidence, not a single shred, which linked Osama bin Laden with 9/11.
Coming in the week when a PC-assembled birth certificate is issued by the White House, and when attempts are being made to wipe out Gadaffi’s family in order to confiscate the wealth of the Libyan state, this is one almighty distraction.
I hope his eye-balls and ears fed his brains enough visual and aural info + lots of pain as they were scattered all over the wall of his hidey-hole to make his last few seconds on earth the most hellish of experiences!!!!
It was SWEET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>OOH RAH NAVY S.E.A.L.S.!!!!!!!!
Knew we could count on you.
Maybe the voices should have told you that ” Osama bin Laden is still alive “.
My money says the leading conspiracy nuts are saying this already
Best tweets
“Donald Trump asking for Death Cert.”
“We’re sure it’s not Cat Stevens, right?”
“He moves from a cave to a mansion and gets whacked. The Presinent really hates the rich”
Well done. He chose the path of merciless killing and perished on it.
Only cloud is the human shield(s) who died with him.
Especially fitting that this happens before the 10th anniversary of 9-11.
I so wish I was in New York tonight.
Semper fi, Navy Seals. You’re the best.
Let’s just say that this was a ” controlled demolition “
Not quite the best, Phantom, but they have my gratitude today.
This is how terrorists should be dealt with, unlike here in the UK where they are appeased and even placed in government of the very country they wish to destroy.
A great day for the USA and her allies, my worry is now the imminent retaliation, from the islamic many, on embassies and soft targets.
Just a pity he couln’t have been captured and taken to ‘interrogation’, now that would have been real fun.
Great job by US special forces. I hear on the news that OBL is now swimming with the fishes. If only we could get the government in London to take the shackles off the best special forces in the world the SAS. They could tie up a few lose ends here in Northern Ireland and any of the IRA scum that comes form the RoI.
I’ve never wished a man dead, but I’ve read some obituaries with great pleasure.
— Mark Twain
( stolen from Little Green Footballs )
>>>>”Just a pity he couln’t have been captured and taken to ‘interrogation’, now that would have been real fun”<<<<<
Negatory Logical Unionist.
The Liberal pussies would have jumped in and blamed bin Laden's abhorant behaviour on the "evil Juice", who are persecuting his Palistinian martyers with the help of the American Capitalist Arms manufacturers, and a dysfunctional childhood growing up on Dublin's North inner city. Ya see society made him do those things and now he wwas turning his life around before those SEAL mercenaries kidnapped him.
So the world is a better place nows he has not face, head, liver, etc.
>>a dysfunctional childhood growing up on Dublin’s North inner city<<
But their opponents could then have pointed to me as an example of how such a background can also produce consummate moral and intellectual perfection.
Let’s hope so, I’d hate to smile over nothing.
Glenn,
that was really what I was alluding to.
Unfortunately, there seems to be good terrorists and really bad ones.
Our spineless government will eventually not taking appropriate action against not only irish terrorists but the rest of the islamic ‘brotherhood’ in the UK.
It was tongue in cheek Eddie, I am glad he has now left the building.
LU, Come back to us with your arguments when Bin Laden is elected to public office in the US and Al Quaeda becomes the biggest political party in New York.
That hypothetically wouldn’t be allowed, or wouldn’t have been allowed, but somehow in NI, it is accepted and propagated by our government and a compliant media as ‘progress’.
Sickening.
Anyway, let’s not spoil the moment, and be thankful at least one scumbag won’t be making any more home videos from his salubrious cave.
The British tried a shoot to kill policy but it didn’t work. They tried directing loyalist terrorists to murder lawyers, community activists and innocent bystanders in order to terrorise nationalists. It failed. They tried internment, super grass show trials and Diplock Courts and it all came to nothing.
Only addressing the real political problem brought peace. Unionists and nationalists are working together for a better future and it’s a shame that here are still sick people on the sidelines who want to go back to the failed policies of the past.
You really do believe everything that you’re told!
Let’s just hope that the death certificate is legitimate noting the computer-assembled birth certificate which was released last week (and is now coming under serious scrutiny – needs a diversion).
Great news – but there are others like him.
Henry,
you are talking complete nonsense.
It speaks volumes you try and airbrush the heinous crimes by your ira, the same ira your community votes for in their droves by attempting to paint some imaginary picture of the British stooping to all sorts of failed policies against the poor catholics.
It is nonsense, and is contemptible.
There is no peace, only appeasement, and the only sick people on the sidelines are those who vote for murderers.
I never have and never will, unlike the majority of catholics.
Logical Unionist
I see you couldn’t resist attacking Catholics. We know what the north would be like if people like you still had the British doing your dirty work. The sectarian state would be back and the croppies would be lying down. Well tough luck buddy it ain’t going to happen. The rotten orange state collapsed. The sad thing is that it took so long to agree the only kind of deal that made sense to replace it. It was people on both sides looking for a military victory that delayed the peace. The deal we have today is the same deal we had in 1973. If Unionist bigots like you had been willing to share power with the SDLP then you wouldn’t have to share power with SF today. It’s your own fault so suck it up.
Do you mean Northern Ireland?
The British doing my dirty work?
I am British, and I am quite capable of doing my own work.
No dirty work, but I admit it was sometimes stomach churning to deal with terrorist scum, and I mean on both sides.
The ‘deal’ we have today is not the same as the one in 73, it is much, much worse for unionism, and the current bunch in charge should hang their heads in shame at the wanton waste of life since it; which was unnecessary and a complete waste of human life, which exacerbated and drove both communities further apart with each fatality.
The appeasement of terrorism will end up as the very thing which will collapse this society again, as anything built on such a shoddy and sectarian foundation is certain to collapse.
I think you should take back the comment that, ‘If Unionist bigots like you had been willing to share power with the SDLP then you wouldn’t have to share power with SF today’, as I advocated sharing with the sdlp many, many years ago.
In the meantime, keep on voting for terrorists, it suits you.
I advocated sharing with the sdlp many, many years ago.
In 1973 the SDLP spoke for nationalists. They had the votes. That’s when sharing power with just them was an option and unionism blew it. Wanting to share power with them after the rise of Sinn Fein is not the same thing at all. That’s just another version of exclusion with the SDLP playing the Uncle Tom role. Why would they? It would be political suicide.
You don’t get to pick our representatives in government. That’s the deal we agreed and it’s the deal the majority of unionists have consistently voted for.
Henry, as usual you are exercising ‘selective’ democracy, a common trait in nationalism. It is interesting you insist unionism ‘blew it’ when power sharing was offered, but why would unionism be forced to share power with a minority? Do you think the tories should be forced to or choose to share power with the bnp, or the green party? Or is it not democracy when a majority of NI citizens vote for unionist mps or mla’s,?
The problem was and still is that nationalists cannot accept the will of the majority and resort to violence to coerce their viewpoint and usurp democracy.
Also, a majority of unionists rejected the BA, and in greater numbers after the first term in the assembly having to stomach mcguinness the ira commander sitting in ministerial office.
I would be interested to hear your views on if bin laden had a political party and people voted for his party in the us or in the uk, they would be entitled to hold power?
Would that be democratic?
As Monday mornings go, not too shabby!
Brad Thor wrote a quote on the inside cover of one of his books that went something like, people sleep easily because brave men are willing to do violence on their behalf. I’m glad they got him.
Plato also said all those years ago, ‘only the dead have seen the end of war’.
bin laden sleeps with the fishes
I would like to see firm evidence Kateyo.
CIA-led operation.
Dick “Obama is weak on security” Cheney choking on his cornflakes.
Donald, ” Circus Barker” Chump: We’ll I think the greatest President in US history has answered to Trumps relevance. While Trump was firing La Toya Jackson of his silly reality show, Obama was planning this deed.
You’d think Troll wrote that. We’ll should read, Well.
All other errors are my own.
So I guess LU never voted unionist then
I think that was originally attributed to George Orwell, by the way
emerald,
a puerile and nonsensical response.
I have never voted for a murderer, nor a leader of a murdering bunch of evil, cowardly scum.
Unlike others……
wikiquote says that that quote has never been properly identified with Orwell
But this one appears accurate, and, most valid
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” – Winston Churchill (miscellaneous quotation, no date)
why would unionism be forced to share power with a minority?
In simple terms, because the British government say so. What part of British rule don’t you understand. They have a deal with the Irish government about how it goes in the north and the unionists will never be allowed hold power on their own. They have shown they can’t be trusted. A majority of unionists vote for parties who agree with power-sharing now.
Or is it not democracy when a majority of NI citizens vote for unionist mps or mla’s,?
Of course it’s democracy for unionist to elect their representatives. It’s just not democracy for them to rule over nationalists in a sectarian state.
The problem was and still is that nationalists cannot accept the will of the majority
Rubbish. The Agreement is the will of the majority and nationalists are all for it.
Also, a majority of unionists rejected the BA
Evidence??
Here’s the result Turnout 81% Yes 676,966 (71%) No 274,879 (29%)
“In the North, when normal combined voting strengths among both nationalist and unionist communities are superimposed on the Referendum result, it is clear that pre-polling opinion polls and exit polls on the day were correct in showing that a majority of the unionist voters voted ‘Yes’.”
That was when the DUP was anti-agreement. Now it is pro-agreement. So why won’t you accept the will of the vast majority.
Agreed Eddie.
Only the handwringers and the “he was so misunderstood”ers would want that.
Some of these guys would have got Ghengis Khan pardoned and put in charge of a Boy Scout troop….
sorry, but I think you will find Henry, that democracy is the rule of the majority.
You and other nationalists want to use it when it suits, but you can’t have it both ways.
I notice you didnt answer my question.
No surprise there to me.
Also, the anti agreement unionists held the majority of seats in the first assembly election, and subsequently until the st andrews accord.
Simple! It isn’t rocket science!
I’ll ask it again for you Henry.
I would be interested to hear your views on if bin laden had a political party and people voted for his party in the us or in the uk, they would be entitled to hold power?
Would that be democratic?
Simple yes or no will suffice.
sorry, but I think you will find Henry, that democracy is the rule of the majority.
We have a pro-agreement majority in the north, on the island of Ireland and in britain. Which majority is it you don’t accept?
Also, the anti agreement unionists held the majority of seats in the first assembly election, and subsequently until the st andrews accord.
That’s a lie. Here are the results
http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/fa98.htm
I don’t care how interested you claim to be in my answer to your utterly stupid question I’m not prepared to waste my time on it.
I’ll take that as an admittal of sheer hypocrisy as everyone can now see.
Thanks.
here, here
Amen
lol
So, I am now a liar?
Well, Henry, I will expose you as a liar and I will wait for your apology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Northern_Ireland_Assembly_elected_in_1998
So, just to explain how it works, there are 5 ukup members, Pauline Armitage, Peter Weir, Roy Beggs, so thats 8 so far. Then we have 20 DUP members. that makes 28.
Then we have 3 independent unionists, which makes 31 seats.
against that we have the remaining uup members, 25, plus the uvf thugs, 3, which makes 28.
So, to summarise; 28 pro agreement, and 31 anti agreement.
Embarrassing lol.
Now, who is the LIAR, EH?
Apologise or be exposed as the hypocrite we see you as.
You forgot to count the nationalists. You claim was that the anti-agreement unionists had a majority of the seats. They did not.
What people will see is that you are making a fool of yourself again.
oh dear Henry…..clutching at straws…..
your post at 14.50 you wrote in response to me stating :Also, a majority of unionists rejected the BA.
you replied;
Evidence??
Here’s the result Turnout 81% Yes 676,966 (71%) No 274,879 (29%)
“In the North, when normal combined voting strengths among both nationalist and unionist communities are superimposed on the Referendum result, it is clear that pre-polling opinion polls and exit polls on the day were correct in showing that a majority of the unionist voters voted ‘Yes’.”
That was when the DUP was anti-agreement. Now it is pro-agreement. So why won’t you accept the will of the vast majority.
A clear refernce to the balance of the unionist representatives.
Pleasure to debate with you.
Try again and study harder.
Thanks.
good try, but you are cleaned twice.
firstly in the majority of unionists supporting the agreement, which I have proved to be lies, and secondly your hypocrisy surrounding democracy.
You aren’t even capable of constructing a coherent argument on either of these basic threads.
Factually incorrect, and opinionated ignorant garbage.
Nope.
My claim was “Also, a majority of unionists rejected the BA, and in greater numbers after the first term in the assembly having to stomach mcguinness the ira commander sitting in ministerial office.”
10.52.
zzzzzz bye idiot.
Back to the age-old Unionist strategy of corralling people into make-shift groups that best suit your polical agenda, LU?
Counting maverick Unionists as anti-agreement (and were the likes of Roy Beggs really anti-agreement all along, or just pro-opportunist?) while ignoring the pro-agreement leanings of so many other “Unionists” (Alderdice a nationalist, anyone?) is inconsistent to say the least. There were Unionist aplenty across all U parties looking only to their political careers and without an anti-agreement bone in their bodies, as subsequent events showed plainly.
But it matters little: a clear majority from both the Unionist and the Nationalist communities supported the Agreement in 1998 and still support it today.
LU
firstly in the majority of unionists supporting the agreement, which I have proved to be lies, and secondly your hypocrisy surrounding democracy.
The majority of unionists voted for the agreement on a very high turnout and those Unionists elected in 1998 worked the agreement. So happy were they with it that now all elected unionists are pro-agreement so even if you can cobble together a claim for an anti-agreement majority (of unionists, not overall, our votes count too) you are left with two serious problems.
First majority rule which you claim to believe in still means the agreement was democratic and legitimate at all times. And second why did anti-agreement unionists switch to pro-agreement unionists to such an extent that there is no anti-agreement elected representatives left.
Your question on democracy is still facile and I think any fair-minded person would agree with me there. If you give a more sensible example I will address it. What about if the Taliban committed themselves to democratic and peaceful to the satisfaction of the US and UK governments means and then won enough seats to participate in a coalition in Afghanistan. Should they be allowed?
That could become a realistic scenario in the next few years. I would say yes to that. I would even see a role for mandatory coalition as a means of establishing stability.
henry – a fair and tempered response. Well done.
Noel,
I think you will find my post at 10.52 dealt exclusively with a majority of unionists who were anti agreement which was true and even more accentuated in the following election.
The alliance party are not classed as unionists, they are nio stooges.
As for your post of ; “But it matters little: a clear majority from both the Unionist and the Nationalist communities supported the Agreement in 1998 and still support it today.”
Incorrect.
A majority of unionists voted against the agreement.
The parties now in the government will say it is on the basis of st andrews.
I think I agree therfore on THAT basis with your assertion that most were hell bent on the progression of their careers…
LU
“The alliance party are not classed as unionists, they are nio stooges.”
Yes, and the UUP were classed as pro-Agreement. Yet you picked out and counted some members as anti-A based on their personal (and highly doubtful) leanings, while ignoring the pesonal leanings of others across many parties (Alliance, DUP even) who were both Unionists and pro-Agreement, as subsequent events showed.
“A majority of unionists voted against the agreement.”
Wrong. According to the The Northern Ireland Referendum and Election Study, 57% of
Protestants voted for the Agreement in 1998. That figure was never seriously contested AFAIK. You may have some valid points about the morality / political wisdom of allowing former terrorists into governemnt, but you will get nowhere if you keep denying basic political facts.
We can assume that having voted for the Agreement some unionist voters either stuck with the DUP out of candidate loyalty or because they believed the DUP would work the agreement more effectively from a unionist point of view. If that was the case they were right.
Thanks Mahons. It easy to be cool when you have the votes. And I’m delighted for the US today. I have two beautiful American nieces and their enemies are my enemies.
Henry, we don’t believe you until you publish photographs as proof
Wrong.
A minority of unionists voted for the agreement. Unless you are saying that 81% of turnout makes the unionist population more than 58%?
Dont think so.
Secondly, Armitage broke ranks, as did weir, and beggs along with a few others abstained on crucial votes, so no, they did not work the agreement.
Wrong again.
Thirdly, all elected reps are now under the auspices of st andrews, not the ba, which they claim, (I admit rather ambiguously) to be ‘different’.
As for your two problems, you ignore the elephant in the room , which is namely, why the agreement had to enforce a sectarian headcount and appease republican murdering scum.
Violence and the threat of, which is why I asked you if you would defend the right of a bin laden led party receiving votes and taking seats in government in us, or uk.
It is EXACTLY the same as the ira sitting in this part of the uk. You cannot have it both ways.
So, to summarise, the agreement was not democratic, as it placed terrorists into the political commune without adherence to normal rules of democracy and adherence to non violence, despite their verbal reassurances,
( from proven lying murderers ) and secondly, anti agreement unionists switched after st andrews.
Therefore, no problem at all with any of this, it is quite simple.
As for your penultimate paragraph, a better example or hypothesis would be what if the us was as weak as the blair gov and betrayed all principles of democracy and appeased bin laden and to the expense and disgust of the many thousands of victims allowed them to set up political office and permit them to sit in government of the very country they wish to destroy? (ie, the USA.)
Do you think americans would allow it?
The example of afghanistan is not relevant, we are talking about countries the ira attacked, namely the uk, so the us being attacked by bin ladens cronies is fair and apt.
If you dont want to answer my questions, why should I spend time addressing yours and educating you?
I have already dealt with your incorrect statements, why cant you answer mine?
Democracy is quite basic, in that unionists are a majority, but are forced to accomadate a majority, due to the violence and threats of violence from republicans, backed up by the catholic community.
Your community have a choice to either leave behind the terrorists, and move on, or continue to embrace the bloodied organisation responsible for more catholic fatalities than anyone else.
Alas, still you vote for these same murderers.
sick.
Noel, because unlike you, I was actually there personally and I know that a majority of unionists voted against the agreement, as evidenced by the representatives in office after the first election who were openly anti agreement,like the majority of MP’s for example of the uup and dup, plus the demise of the uup’s parlimentary team thereafter, due to their support of the BA, and secondly, what dup member was pro agreement in 98?
No-one.
As for basic political facts in relation to the government sponsored ni ref study, – a load of crap.
So, 80% or so of turnout means unionists are more than 58%?
Think about it!
Did you know for example the rep of the people act, 83, ie the act of parliament designed solely to ensure fair representation of media propaganda in the run up to any election was especially repealed for the referendum and an independent study by mcann eriksonn showed a bias of roughly the same as the result?
It is the only occasion in recent history to be the case.
I suppose that’ll be democratic, as it suits?
Dont assume.
A lot of unionists were so annoyed and revulsed at the ira sitting in government having been allowed in WITHOUT decommissioning. That was the main reason for the switch to the dup, amongst other repugnant examples of ira men speaking irish and wasting time and making jibes to victims and ira memorials and so on.
So, no.
Wrong again, but at least you are consistent.
yeah, but totally irrelevant and factually incorrect.
Easy to be cool when you are stating lies.
As it happens we have another election next week so we will see where people stand. I hope Unionists vote in large numbers for the DUP again. I’m very impressed with Peter Robinson. But whoever they vote for nationalists will be willing to work with them.
why the agreement had to enforce a sectarian headcount
The Northern Ireland state was founded on the basis of a sectarian headcount and voting still reflects that. It is not democratic for one community to be excluded from government because they are the minority in a gerrymandered state. Not only is it wrong but it has been tried and failed.
Lest there be any doubt the same principle would have to be applied in a united Ireland. Your community would have to be part of the government.
It looks like we are not going to agree on a worthwhile political analogy for the agreement. It’s easy to blame Blair but there is complete agreement among the British parties and David Cameron has been very responsible (from my point of view) in supporting the agreement.
Now Logical, temper temper. You have a colorable claim (not that I buy it) in your “what if” argument. And you haven’t been opposed by anyone spouting untruths, just a different interpretation than yours (and I buy theirs). You’d be more persuasive if you were less agitated.
So are you LU. Consistently droning on about Northern Ireland on threads that are nothing to do with it. Put a sock in it will ya !
Next weeks election haas nothing to do with the belfast agreement. Unionists will vote for the dup and a large chunk the tuv as punishment for the uup’s inept and weak opposition to the ira.
Your second paragraph is complete and utter nonsense.
The rep was founded on a sectarian headcount too, but they have democracy. You cant pick and choose which country is ‘allowed’ to elect their government.
One minute we are told by nationalists to ‘move on’, then when it suits we are back to some other propaganda about the poor downtrodden catholics and the usual rubbish.
Northern Ireland is part of the uk and democracy is democracy, as it is in scotland, wales or england, or even, in fact in the republic!
When a majority is elected, that is it, except in NI., where catholics will not accept democracy and resort to violence and mass murder.
There won’t be a united ireland, unless of course the irish are man enough to cast off their collective chips off their shoulders and join the rest of the other 4 nations in the british isles, that is the only viable option open at present due to the bankrupt free state.
Your last paragrapgh sounds very nice, but reflects a nationalist viewpoint in that you are happy with a minority being appeased due to violence and more pertinently, bombs out of London.
I maintain that the ira sitting in government, permitted to do so by our government, and supported by citizens it has murdered, is exactly the same as bin laden sitting in the us government, being allowed by the president and gaining votes from us citizens.
How many americans on here would be able to stomach that?
Exactly.
The ira should be left behind by your community, not supported, simple as that.
Bin Laden was born in the US? Now thats a birth certificate I’d like to see.
If you want a better analogy, after our Civil War in which hundreds of thousands were killed, men who fought for the Confederacy later became eleigible to participate in the political process.
The ira should be left behind by your community, not supported, simple as that.
The IRA as I understand it no longer exists. When it comes to a choice between the PSNI and those who are attacking them and attacking the agreement I am 100% on the side of the police.
Let’s not go over old ground as we could be here forever doing that. The genius of the Agreement is that two communities with wildly differing interpretations of the past can agree on a future.
Your problem is not really with us but with the British government and your fellow unionists.
Mahons,
never said bin laden was born in the usa, dont be facetious.
My analogy maybe uncomfortable for irish nationalists, but it is entirely apt, as bin laden wanted to destroy the us, and the ira the same with ni.
If muslims in the us created a party which included bin laden supporters and some who were convicted prisoners in g bay and not sentenced to death, how would you enjoy watching them sit in government with the support of citizens?
That is the reality of the sickening hypocrisy on view here.
Colm,
if you dont like it, dont read it.
Simple.
No temper, just stating facts, as opposed to actual incorrect assumptions, which I have striven to prove and succeeded to show as such.
Not agitated at all, just a bit tired having to constantly correct and educate other posters on their threads when they are factually wrong.
Opinions are fine and we can argue all night, but it seems when the facts dont suit, off they go on a diversion to suit.
I suppose I do admit, I am used to it.
Don’t be so selfish LU. Keep your Northern Irish comments to N.I posts. Don’t boringly hijack every thread to drone about your own obsessions.
So where did the anti-agreement voters go? There are more pro-agreement unionist voters now than there were at the outset. So the agreement is gaining ground. The TUV vote will show how small anti-agreement unionism is.
I think that’s a fair point. We do get enough NI threads without dragging the old debate into everything else. Have the last word LU and let’s leave it alone. There will be plenty to talk about on Friday.
Perhaps Colm, you can practice what you preach?
I am involved on a long debate with Henry, I am replying to questions as I am asked. Isn’t that good manners, or would you prefer I ignore them and concentrate on threads you just want to read?
You are not forced to read it, less so to comment!
Henry this is my point as I have repeatedly outlined before.
There are NOT more pro agreement voters or unionists, as it is on different terms!
The anti agreement voters are now ( as far as the dup are concerned) are hiding behind the st andrews accord as it is ‘different’ to the BA.
This is their defence that they are still anti BA, but after their brilliant and amazing negotiations, (ahem), st andrews is a great deal for unionism and has fixed the uup’s deficiencies.
Add to that this years blackmail of mcguinness getting the first ministers post, ie, vote for us or ira marty gets top post, and then think about the ‘clever mechanisms’ available to robinson last time and the last election it was vote for us,or else rates and water charges will be foisted,etc blah, blah blah.
The tuv will be tainted by unionists voting for the dup to prevent the ira commander being first minister.
A clever political move by robinson and the dup,( although unfair, but hey, thats politics ) and will be repeated every election.
Your answer to the support for the agreement is in the election after the first term when the dup destroyed the uup because of the BA. Unionism is opposed to the ira in government and an increasing number see the current regime as a waste of money and ultimately, unworkable, myself included.
I don’t see were the Sinn Fein gains are supposed to come from to make MMcG FM. Maybe in 10 years SF might be in that position but not this week. And at that stage it won’t be Martin McGuinness.
So you can relax on that score. The TUV vote will be seen as the unionist anti-agreement vote. That’s the reality. Only in Upper Bann could the TUV possibly help elect a second SF candidate which would be ironic considering who the candidate is.
St. Andrews didn’t change anything essential. It’s still the GFA but if that’s what it takes for people to support it fine.
Henry….tch.
Think about it. If unionism divides and people who are fed up with the dup vote for the tuv then it is possible that ira marty could get first minister with sfira getting more votes after the three way unionist split.
The tuv or anyone else will not be anything whatsoever to do with an anti agreement anything! It was 13 years ago for goodness sake!
Totally irrelevant.
The unionist electorate are torn between the following; not letting marty to top the poll, rates and water charges and not having direct influence over same, and also, for the savvy, not letting the justice portfolio go to sfira, and last, but not least, bringing down an unworkable executive.
St andrews is not the BA, and this election has nothing to do with either.
It’s not the most votes that matters but the most seats and I don’t see the potential gains. The gap is eight. In any case under PR you could vote TUV and transfer back to the DUP to be on the safe side.
If the TUV don’t improve on their General Election vote the Marty factor won’t explain it away.
SF are not interested in the justice portfolio at this point.
Not sure about your last point….also, the sdlp are having a nightmare, I think Ritchie is poor, and they have not much to offer in terms of ministerial potential.
They along with the uup could face heavy losses as the middle ground is eaten away even more.
I have the SDLP holding their own. I think they have been better at carving out a space for themselves than the UUP have. I have gone off Ritchie. She seems angry. We’ll know soon enough. I’d be happy for David to take a seat but ATW would probably suffer a bit. It would be very interesting to see hime dealing with life on the inside.
No Henry,
it is with the godfathers of mass murder receiving electoral support, even when their clearly state aim is to destroy NI.
What is progressive about that?
I think Henry, the sdlp will be almost defunct after this. No leadership and no real direction as sfira have stolen their clothes, as is the same can be said for the uup and the dup on the same basis.
It’ll unfortunately be more of the same as the NI elctorate go back to their respective trenches and the dup /sfira carve up will continue. The only hope would be the uup, sdlp, tuv, green., alliance making a coalition, but the chances of sfira and the dup allowing this is nil.