Is it possible to be a Sinn Fein member/supoporter and not support IRA actions?

maccored · 12-12-2013 1:20am

alastair wrote: »

Correction - Some republicans.

I dont mean the 'pretend so I can get a vote republicans' like FF etc, so I would correct your correction and remain with 'in the eyes of republicans'.

What makes even more sense is the rejection of their campaign by a far greater number.

And where is your data to back that up?

Considering you must mean people living in the areas affected (mainly the northern counties), and considering the IRA couldnt have existed at all without public support.

Also consider you never know how people actually feel. Ive talked to people who years ago would deny suporting SF in any way, but how now admit they always voted for them, which just shows that you cant always take people at face value. I remember a time when any show of support for SF could end up with the RUC tracking you.

So again, I disagree with you mainly because you dont know how much support sinn fein or the ira had and therefore you cant really say they didnt have support from those they needed support from. As I say, being the kind of guerilla army the IRA were, they could not have existed unless there were people there to support them - and these couldnt be tiny pockets. anywhere the IRA done stuff, there had to be local support otherwise they'd be caught in no time.

maccored · 12-12-2013 1:23am

NIMAN wrote: »

Are FF'ers not republicans?

Is a republican a greedy bastard who likes bankrupting countries? If thats not what a republican is then I'd say no - FF arent republicans.

alastair · 12-12-2013 1:42am

maccored wrote: »

I dont mean the 'pretend so I can get a vote republicans' like FF etc, so I would correct your correction and remain with 'in the eyes of republicans'.

Feel free to do as you choose, but it's still only some republicans. SF and the IRA don't hold any franchise on republican politics.

maccored wrote: »

And where is your data to back that up?

A small thing called the democratic process. Check any electoral poll for the entire period of the provo's campaign. Very much a minority interest - even allowing for your supposed secret shinner voters.

maccored · 12-12-2013 2:27pm

alastair wrote: »

A small thing called the democratic process. Check any electoral poll for the entire period of the provo's campaign. Very much a minority interest - even allowing for your supposed secret shinner voters.

Easy on now - in another thread on here you're only after telling me you dont need the democratic process as the general public viewpoint is good enough. Electoral polls ? The IRA had local, ground support because - as already mentioned - they couldnt have existed otherwise. You cant vote for the IRA, so electorial polls dont come into it.

alastair · 12-12-2013 2:36pm

maccored wrote: »

Easy on now - in another thread on here you're only after telling me you dont need the democratic process as the general public viewpoint is good enough. Electoral polls ? The IRA had local, ground support because - as already mentioned - they couldnt have existed otherwise. You cant vote for the IRA, so electorial polls dont come into it.

You could certainly vote for SF - the openly declared political wing of the IRA. And how did they fare in the gallery of electoral choices? Well, frankly, pretty poorly. Poorly in NI, even worse in the republic. I'm not sure what you're on about regarding not needing a democratic process? Maybe you need to re-read what I actually wrote?

ShowMeTheCash · 12-12-2013 3:52pm

Just reading through the thread...

So it could be argued that even if SF had sound policy a fairly significant populas would still not vote for the party even if they agreed on "current" policy.

I think SF need to drop some of the dinosaurs, they need a face lift to move forward and essentailly drop anyone physically connected to the troubles...

This does not really change anything, like painting a speed stripe on your banged up motor, people are too stupid and or fickle to make decisions that are in the best interest of its population...
But then again, we have all bought into a system that is a circus that keeps us guessing / entertained while CEO's, politicians and the "elite" pocket money for sick childeren.... But let's not worry about that, let's watch Enda bash Gerry Adams about the Northern Bank.... That will fix everything!

The idea that people would let FG or FF run the country into the dirt befor they would vote SF kind of sets the intellectual tone of our nation.

SF will eventually I think move to a more main stream Party, give it another generation... No one in the party will have witnessed or been party to anything that actaully happened during the troubles, then we will have three completely corrupt and morally reprehensible parties

Tramps Like Us · 12-12-2013 3:55pm

Yes, when I was a member there were some who had no time whatsoever for the IRA. I know one who even worked (may still do) in leinster house for a SF TD/Senator as an assistant.

Personally I believed that most of these people were careerist and were only members of SF because the party is in the ascendancy, were it FF or Labour they'd be with them.

However there are many people who now support SF who would have given canvassers a right ear bashing years ago.

Reality is (and people here won't like this) that deep down a lot of people had sympathy with the IRA on a basic level, but were put off by the level of violence and civilian deaths.

We are years into a peace process and the IRA are gone... many people support SFs policies and appreciate the hard work they do, and that SF are a clear alternative

I don't support SF anymore, other than giving them a high preference as the best of a bad lot.

Tramps Like Us · 12-12-2013 3:56pm

Interesting to note that the constant SF bashing over the past few weeks had a negligible effect on their support.

Change the record

Richard · 14-12-2013 8:47am

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Interesting to note that the constant SF bashing over the past few weeks had a negligible effect on their support.

Change the record

To what...?

spank_inferno · 14-12-2013 11:01am

Richard wrote: »

To what...?

You know.... That record that sings of SF/IRA being a competent, inspiring, all inclusive political movement.

Tramps Like Us · 14-12-2013 1:01pm

spank_inferno wrote: »

You know.... That record that sings of SF/IRA being a competent, inspiring, all inclusive political movement.

Or you know to one which embraces the present and isnt a collection of coner cruise O'Briens greatest hits. We've heard it all before a million times people care a lot less now because the outrage is clearly oppertunistic

Son Of A Vidic · 14-12-2013 1:17pm

CueCard7 wrote: »

Fianna Fail in 1926 were allowed to get on with politics.

Indeed and didn't Fianna Fail enter the Dáil carrying guns. Guns that they never surrendered nor decommissioned. Selective revisionism seems to be a quality that those in glasshouses often possess in abundance.

The Corinthian · 17-12-2013 3:56pm

NIMAN wrote: »

Maybe some of the media in this country will never let it go?

Probably not, unless SF were willing to repudiate their past PIRA sympathies. It's a situation not unique to SF; throughout Europe there are political parties that have had their origins in communism and fascism, for example, and this historical association has never left them, until many eventually turned around and publicly rejected it (Italy's former Alleanza Nazionale party being a good example of this). As such, until SF does the same, the association will remain.

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

We are years into a peace process and the IRA are gone... many people support SFs policies and appreciate the hard work they do, and that SF are a clear alternative

Good point. While the perceived link between the PIRA and SF is likely to remain for the foreseeable future, people's memory of the PIRA has become fuzzier; they don't seem quite as bad as they used to.

Nonetheless, SF's greatest asset is probably, as you say, that they appear to be a clear alternative to the current political establishment - all of whom appear to be equally moribund. I don't think this disillusion is an Irish problem per say though; you're seeing it through Western democracies. Neither is it the first time Western democracies have witnessed this.

laoch na mona · 17-12-2013 4:28pm

yes because that is the past you question is the same as asking can anyone support FG and not be a blueshirt or can anyone support labour and not support the actions of the official IRA

The Corinthian · 17-12-2013 5:08pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

yes because that is the past you question is the same as asking can anyone support FG and not be a blueshirt or can anyone support labour and not support the actions of the official IRA

Oh, I agree that eventually SF's past association with the PIRA will become irrelevant, even without any repudiation of the PIRA by SF, to speed things up. But it's probably going to take a very long time.

Dubhlinner · 17-12-2013 8:58pm

At present it would not be possible - the party would kick you out for condemning PIRA actions.

Many of their leadership were prominent Provos and most of them are open about it. They can hardly have someone condemn their leadership and be a member.

I reckon it will be around 2040-2050 before you'd get straight out condemnation.

grainnewhale · 17-12-2013 11:32pm

Dubhlinner wrote: »

At present it would not be possible - the party would kick you out for condemning PIRA actions.

Many of their leadership were prominent Provos and most of them are open about it. They can hardly have someone condemn their leadership and be a member.

I reckon it will be around 2040-2050 before you'd get straight out condemnation.

That's some reckoning, right there.

Carlos Orange · 18-12-2013 1:05am

laoch na mona wrote: »

yes because that is the past you question is the same as asking can anyone support FG and not be a blueshirt or can anyone support labour and not support the actions of the official IRA

What current senior FG party members were Blueshirts?

grainnewhale · 18-12-2013 9:34am

psinno wrote: »

What current senior FG party members were Blueshirts?

They all are.

The Corinthian · 18-12-2013 9:39am

psinno wrote: »

What current senior FG party members were Blueshirts?

Why don't you ask what current senior politicians were in the GPO during the Easter Rising, while you're at it?

raymon · 18-12-2013 3:38pm

grainnewhale wrote: »

I imagine the majority of people who vote for Sinn Fein will be republicans, with a few disaffected F.F and lab. supporters thrown. I don't forsee any F.G blueshirts voting for republicans, when they have spent a lifetime supporting unionism. After all F.G's John Brutal said meeting Prince Charles was the best moment of his life. It's hard to know whether F.G created a unionist dominated state because of their love for them or brain washed themselves into loving them, to justify creating the despicable apartheid state of northern Ireland.

Is this a reply to me ???

Your reply makes no sense as a response to my post ?
Prince Charles , FG, Apartheid , Unionism, John bruton , Brainwashing ??

How did you pack so much random nonsense into one paragraph? Well done though!

Can you summarise your point in one line ?

MFdaveIreland · 18-12-2013 6:38pm

I dnt support ira today or anything they do, does this make me a stereotypical hypocrit that laments over the old ira like a lot of others, I'm nt sure, I do support Sinn fein up north for the sole reason that they are not a unionist party. Which is sad really as it's either one or the other, and neither do piss all

grainnewhale · 18-12-2013 7:18pm

raymon wrote: »

Is this a reply to me ???

Your reply makes no sense as a response to my post ?
Prince Charles , FG, Apartheid , Unionism, John bruton , Brainwashing ??

How did you pack so much random nonsense into one paragraph? Well done though!

Can you summarise your point in one line ?

If you cant understand a broad statement, then a one liner would surely kill off the last remaining brain cells.

raymon · 18-12-2013 7:25pm

grainnewhale wrote: »

If you cant understand a broad statement, then a one liner would surely kill off the last remaining brain cells.

Sure no problem . Don't bother. Thanks

alastair · 18-12-2013 7:45pm

grainnewhale wrote: »

If you cant understand a broad statement, then a one liner would surely kill off the last remaining brain cells.

It's a broad statement of gibberish tbh.

I don't forsee any F.G blueshirts voting for republicans,

Nor do I. Given that the youngest surviving blueshirt would probably be 98 by now.

when they have spent a lifetime supporting unionism.

Eh, no - they (FG or blueshirts) have not.

After all F.G's John Brutal said meeting Prince Charles was the best moment of his life.

No he didn't. I'm sure the kids and missus ranked higher. He said that the visit of Prince Charles (the first by a British head-of-state in waiting to the State) was the "happiest day of his political life". That's his choice, and certainly would have been an important step in normalising relations with the UK. Not a sniff of unionist empathy, let alone support in the comment all the same.

It's hard to know whether F.G created a unionist dominated state

Really - it's not. They didn't. No-one created a unionist dominated state, given that NI isn't and never was a state in the first place. Craig is probably the man to ask about the partition - after all the agreement between the UK government and Collins included NI in the Free State - where it remained for two days. It's been part of the UK ever since.

because of their love for them or brain washed themselves into loving them,

Maybe you should ponder on DeValera's love for unionists too - he rejected a 32 county free state offer in 1940 after all. Or maybe the claim is just empty cant?

to justify creating the despicable apartheid state of northern Ireland.

Apartheid doesn't exist in NI, and again - it's not a state.

raymon · 18-12-2013 8:18pm

alastair wrote: »

It's a broad statement of gibberish tbh.

Well done for replying to the nonsense. I am unsure what Prince Charles , FG, Apartheid , Unionism, John bruton , Brainwashing has to do with me or my post. I am not associated with any of the above, except for the odd game of backgammon with prince Charles.

Sunnyisland · 18-12-2013 8:29pm

Don't think it be possible to be a member of SF and not support the IRA,s armed campaign,not yet anyway.

I do think there are many people who support SF who did not support the IRA.

Did I said that right.

grainnewhale · 18-12-2013 8:58pm

alastair wrote: »

It's a broad statement of gibberish tbh.

Nor do I. Given that the youngest surviving blueshirt would probably be 98 by now.

Eh, no - they (FG or blueshirts) have not.

No he didn't. I'm sure the kids and missus ranked higher. He said that the visit of Prince Charles (the first by a British head-of-state in waiting to the State) was the "happiest day of his political life". That's his choice, and certainly would have been an important step in normalising relations with the UK. Not a sniff of unionist empathy, let alone support in the comment all the same.

Really - it's not. They didn't. No-one created a unionist dominated state, given that NI isn't and never was a state in the first place. Craig is probably the man to ask about the partition - after all the agreement between the UK government and Collins included NI in the Free State - where it remained for two days. It's been part of the UK ever since.

Maybe you should ponder on DeValera's love for unionists too - he rejected a 32 county free state offer in 1940 after all. Or maybe the claim is just empty cant?

Apartheid doesn't exist in NI, and again - it's not a state.

If you say its gibberish I will have to agree, you are the expert. After all.

Sorry my reference to blueshirts was about their political beliefs, not a facist army.

I think you know that when john brutal was wetting himself about prince Charles . He certainly didn't mention political life. Although his spin doctors did afterwards.

Even you cant be stupid enough to believe that Dev was genuinely offered a 32 county Ireland

So it wasn't apartheid. It was sectarian bigoted discrimination. Aided or at best ignored by the irish goverement

alastair · 18-12-2013 9:26pm

grainnewhale wrote: »

If you say its gibberish I will have to agree

Glad to help - excess additional gibberish redacted.

Savage93 · 18-12-2013 9:32pm

CueCard7 wrote: »

Yes you can. The IRA doesn't exist anymore.

How can you support something that doesn't exist.

It's like saying that all Fine Gael supporters support the actions of the Free State army during the civil war.

I.e the executions/ court Marshalls ect.

A stupid hypothesis.

I think most of the hate for Sinn Fein stems from the fact they are a northern party with left wing/confused policies.

But to say every Sinn Fein supporter is an IRA supporter is stupid.

How can I support something that does not exist?

spoken like a true shinner, even with spelling errors:D:D:D:D:D

Is it possible to be a Sinn Fein member/supoporter and not support IRA actions?

Comments