Debate contribution: Illegal US and Israeli Attacks on Iran

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .

MLA
Mr Timothy Gaston
Party at the time
Traditional Unionist Voice
Date
16 March 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Illegal US and Israeli Attacks on Iran
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5449321

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I oppose the motion and support the amendment standing in the names of Mr Beattie and Dr Aiken. The motion pays lip service to condemning the regime in Iran, but it should not be lost on anyone in the Chamber that Sinn Féin did not rush to the Business Office to table a motion when tens of thousands of people were being massacred by their own Government on the streets of Iran. Sinn Féin, the party of selective human rights, strikes again and exposes the fact that, once again, it supports the oppressor. True to form, it was only when Israel got involved that Mr Sheehan, the cash-and-carry bomber who likes to lecture everyone in the House, got exercised enough to put his name to a motion. That, of course, raises the question of why Israel and their allies in the US thought that now was the time to strike. That brings us back to 7 October 2023, when Iran funded and armed Hamas terrorists to stream over the border from Gaza into Israel and butcher anyone whom their paths crossed with. Those were the animals that Sinn Féin champion and aligns itself to. Last week a film was shown in this Building of some of the raw footage of what happened that day. Security camera footage showed a girl pleading for her life before being shot in the head. Home CCTV footage showed a father with two young boys hiding in their home, only for a grenade to be thrown among them, which killed the father. After that, the young boys sat crying on their mother, as armed terrorists casually strolled about their home, drinking from their fridge and eating their food. First responder footage showed women's bodies lying mutilated after being raped and murdered. Hamas body-camera footage showed a man being decapitated with a shovel. That was the face of Iran's allies in Hamas, yet Sinn Féin comes to this Chamber to lecture Israel and the US on international law. There is not one of us present here who, on seeing our family butchered by Iran's mates, would sit around waiting for approval before acting to prevent Iran from securing a nuclear weapon.

I am happy to give way to the cash-and-carry bomber.

Mr Sheehan

to say in this Chamber?

outside the Chamber, unlike you —.

Unlike you, Mr Sheehan, I can say that any loss of life is regrettable. Can you say that? When you went to plant the bomb in the cash-and-carry, could you say that, if that would have caused loss of life?

Could you say that? Every loss of life, Pat. Every loss of life is regrettable, but you cannot say that, you or your mates in Sinn Féin.

Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. The hypocrisy hanging out of Mr Sheehan, who gets up on his feet to lecture us in the Chamber after what he did, and his convictions in his past —.

Absolute hypocrisy. Just like his mates, the terrorist ayatollahs; just like his mates in Hamas. That is the side that Mr Sheehan likes to be on. Mr Sheehan, I put it to you: would you like to enlighten the House as to what elements of the UN Charter and international law you concerned yourself about when you went to plant the bomb in the cash-and-carry?

Absolutely

Deputy Speaker, when the Members sitting across from me profess that they shed tears for the children killed in Iran, my mind turns to events closer to home here in Northern Ireland. Yesterday was the anniversary of the murder of 11-year-old Alan McCrum, who, in a no-warning IRA bomb, was killed in Banbridge 43 years ago. You cannot claim outrage over the deaths of children thousands of miles away in Iran and Gaza and tell me that there was no alternative to the murder of an 11-year-old Protestant 45 minutes down the road from this very Building. This motion once again shows the hypocrisy of Sinn Féin.

That is why businesses, such as Cantor Fitzgerald, do not want to do business with its Minister. You cannot claim to be the First Minister for all, while you cling to being the First Minister of no alternative.

We have heard fancy words such as "delusion" coming from the Benches opposite, and we have heard about "morally wrong" and "illegally". My goodness, the hypocrisy that comes from that side of the Chamber; to this day, Sinn Féin supports the actions of the IRA — they are joined together as one — but it comes to the Chamber to lecture us. The hypocrisy knows no bounds, and, Mr Sheehan, you are the prime culprit. You come to the Chamber — a bomber —

— coming to the Chamber to tell anybody about —.

796 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Flagged Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism

Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for flagging as culture-war activity.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.94 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • Criteria met: Identity framing (0.84); Sectarian or communal antagonism (0.63); Dog-whistle messaging (0.91); Controversy escalation (0.61).
  • The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.95).
  • Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
  • The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which is flagged even alongside legitimate scrutiny.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.84Yes
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.63Yes
Cultural grievance politics0.06No
Dog-whistle messaging0.91Yes
Controversy escalation0.61Yes
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.11No
Overall judgement0.94Above flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing0.04
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.01
Adopts it (chosen)0.95
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.76
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.23
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)0.01
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:13 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.

If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.