Willy O'Dea's reply to Sinn Féin criticism

Mighty_Mouse

Democracy only works because people agree to negotiate rather than fight, because the public have faith in the public institutions

Exactly, and at the chance of democratic representation, nationalists and republicans were willing to enter negotiations.

those who dont care that theyre a front for the IRA, those who dont know theyre a front for the IRA, and those who refuse to accept theyre a front for the IRA. I only described the last two, the first Id use stronger terms for.

mmm.. does 'Group "vast majority" of Republicans which includes those who accept the necessity of the IRA at the time but believe in the political struggle as the only way forward', fall into any of the above.

ps. your Dr. Paisley-like Sinn Fein/IRA is a lark at this stage.

Ill bite my tongue when it comes to describing the people who vote for SF

Really sticks in your gut doesn't it

Fact One: Adams was part of the IRA delegation to negotiate with Whitelaw.

yes

Convicted IRA bomber has said Adams was her commanding officer

yes

Adams has been named as a member of the Army Council of the IRA along with 3 other SF politicians in a well known paper, based on Irish and British police intelligence

good old reliable British intelligence! But they have said that, yes

Fact Four: Adams has not sued to clear his good name, the article has not been retracted, the Observer has not apologised and not paid him compensation last I heard

Whoa!!! :eek: lol. See Sand you were going so well there. Constructing a strong anti-republican argument and then you go a blow yourself out of the water with this kind of crazy logic!!:p

My opinion on the whole "in/out" of IRA with regard to Gerry Adams has been stated here before but I'll say it again. What exactly does it matter if he was in or out? Regardless, his beliefs are the same. Several Sinn Fein members have admitted to past membership of the IRA and I just can't for the life of me fathom why it has become an issue.

He has no motivation not to admit membership only that he actually wasn't!! I'm sure he doesn't have a problem with the activities of the IRA and I'm sure he doesn't have a problem with former IRA members joining Sinn Fein etc

Sand

Similarly, to quote having faith in the public institutions as a prerequisite for democracy contrasts nicely with the roots of the current IRA, born in a climate where a unionist lobby could bend the public institutions to do their bidding against the nationalist population.

Political inequality ---->>> Terrorist campaign.

No, I dont see that. Murdering civillians wasnt the way forward in the 60s. The IRAs violence has only served to deepen hatred and division between the two communities in the north - confirming old unionist fears of genocidal rampages against them by bloodthirsty republicans, along with SFs policy of not taking seats they were elected to only serving to deepen political inequalites. Every step forward in Northern Ireland has taken place despite the IRA, not because of them. Men like John Hume deserve the credit for breaking through the insane mindset of militant republicans and persuading them to give *not* murdering people a long shot.

Does the first of your groups include people who think that the necessity of the IRA is a regretable fact of life?

those who accept the necessity of the IRA at the time but believe in the political struggle as the only way forward', fall into any of the above.

Yeah, much as the neccessity of the Shankill butchers, protecting their community from republican terror was a regretable fact of life. The necessity of the paras teaching them rioters a lesson on bloody sunday was also a regretable fact of life. Sure, people died - but hey, s h i t happens, eh?

See Sand you were going so well there. Constructing a strong anti-republican argument and then you go a blow yourself out of the water with this kind of crazy logic!!

Oh, so Gerry has sued and won? News to me - can you provide a link, and you might want to pass on the word to Gerry that lies are still being printed about him. Unless of course youre wrong - which isnt too surprising given your grasp on FFs history ( which is basic 5th year history as I remember )

I just can't for the life of me fathom why it has become an issue.

Its like....Bertie Ahern coming out and making a throwaway comment about Haughegy and his cronies not actually having done anything wrong. Hed be then called upon to explain whether he means corruption is acceptable. Why? because people want to know who theyre electing.

Its the same with Adams - If he is on the Army council, fair enough, its clear he and his buddies have acted as a brake on the hardline militants in the IRA - but people want to know who theyre electing.

If you cant fathom why people want clarity on who Adams really is then you clearly dont believe its an issue whether the British state colluded with loyalists to kill nationalists, or in the planting of the monaghan bomb and dublin bombings? Who cares right?

ecksor

Originally posted by Sand
Political inequality ---->>> Terrorist campaign.

No, I dont see that.

I didn't say that's what should happen, but is that not what did happen?

John Hume and the SDLP represented another way but they didn't have the popular support, whereas the republican movement did. The ideas that underlied the GFA were around 20 years previously but their implementation didn't succeed. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of a community were driven to the conclusion that they needed the IRA and supported them in their campaign at that time.

Murdering civillians wasnt the way forward in the 60s. The IRAs violence has only served to deepen hatred and division between the two communities in the north - confirming old unionist fears of genocidal rampages against them by bloodthirsty republicans, along with SFs policy of not taking seats they were elected to only serving to deepen political inequalites.

Taking any positive step in Northern Ireland seems to deepen the fears of one community or another. History has shown us that it wasn't the way forward and from an outside perspective it's easy to take a moral view that it should never be the way forward, but that view was obviously not popular at the time. As I'm sure you're well aware, the republican leadership at that time was certainly politically naive and that held them back in many ways.

Men like John Hume deserve the credit for breaking through the insane mindset of militant republicans and persuading them to give *not* murdering people a long shot.

I agree with you here, although I'd have phrased it as "men like John Hume and Gerry Adams".

What I don't understand (and which is the important question here from my point of view) is that since you recognise the achievement of getting republicans to turn away from the gun, why do you then think that it makes sense for the political movement to disassociate themselves from the hardliners, rather than attempt to bring them with them? What exactly do you think would be the result of splitting the republican community in that manner?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, the sub-threads on these Sinn Fein threads weave all over the place.

Oh, so Gerry has sued and won?

In all fairness, there's got to be 100 better ways of arguing a link between Gerry Adams and the IRA than this fallacious reasoning.

Mighty_Mouse

You love ficticious twists on peoples posts, don't you Sand!:D

Oh, so Gerry has sued and won? News to me - can you provide a link, and you might want to pass on the word to Gerry that lies are still being printed about him. Unless of course youre wrong - which isnt too surprising given your grasp on FFs history ( which is basic 5th year history as I remember )

As I said

See Sand you were going so well there. Constructing a strong anti-republican argument and then you go a blow yourself out of the water with this kind of crazy logic!!

P.S
I'm not sure how much effort I should put into answering a person who advocates a shoot to kill policy as the solution to the marching problem in the North, tbh.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1784194#post1784194

Originally posted by ecksor
I didn't say that's what should happen, but is that not what did happen?

John Hume and the SDLP represented another way but they didn't have the popular support, whereas the republican movement did.

Ecksor wasn't it only after the IRA ceasefire and the implimentation of the GFA that Sinn Feins support rocketed in the north, mainly at the expense of the SDLP?
I don't think that it's true to say that John Hume didn't have popular support given that he ran a close second to Ian Paisley on many occasions for Europe.




Hmmm this bloody american keyboard doesn't want to put a fada in Sinn Fein-Paisley would love it

Cork

It is a pity that SF/IRA did not take on John Humes ideas 30 years earlier.

The SDLP always stood againist the use of violence.

SF/IRA followed the flopped policy of the armalite and ballot box.

In fairness it has come some what around to see the sheer folly of this policy with the encoragement of democratic partys like the SDLP & FF.

Cork

Pleading the party is on a learning curve, Finance spokesman Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin admits there are gaps and anomalies in the policy papers. He will have to do better than that when it comes down to the crunch in a general election.

It is absolutely clear that taxes would rise sharply under Sinn Féin's policies.

What voters need to know is how they would be raised and who would have to pay.

Irish Examiner

Fair play to the Irish Examiner doing an analysis on the "economic policies" of SF.

Undoubtedly, the crucial factor to emerge from today's detailed analysis of Sinn Féin policies is the revelation that its specific proposals could end up costing the Exchequer around E5 billion in current spending.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin admits there are gaps and anomalies in the policy papers

I think Willie O Dea would agree with him on that.

Sand

I didn't say that's what should happen

You at the very least implied it was a regretable necessity, when it wasnt.

John Hume and the SDLP represented another way but they didn't have the popular support

Earthman has already dealt with this.

What I don't understand (and which is the important question here from my point of view) is that since you recognise the achievement of getting republicans to turn away from the gun, why do you then think that it makes sense for the political movement to disassociate themselves from the hardliners, rather than attempt to bring them with them? What exactly do you think would be the result of splitting the republican community in that manner?

I didnt say it made sense for SF to disavow their relationship with the IRA - though the fact that SFs support has rocketed since the IRA ceasefire, and SF has achieved more from negotiation than the IRA ever has tells its own story - I said I was tired of this crap by SF supporters that SF was some distant cousin of the IRA rather than joined at the hip. I said I dont view SF as an electable or legitimate democratic party when they have a private army attached to them.

How did anyone take seriously the SF participation in the anti-war organisations? Its laughable given their refusal to condemn violence that is at *least* as inexscusable. Can you imagine a SF Minister for Justice, instructing the Gardai whilst also serving on the IRA Army Council? Or a SF Minister of Defence whose loyalities are split between the legitimate Army of the Irish Republic and a bunch of British sepratists who think leaving bombs in English shopping streets to kill children is a valid tactic? A regretable necessity?

Until SF disavow the IRA and normalise their relations with them - i.e. end the dual membership, then Im sorry, I will continue to criticise them.

You love ficticious twists on peoples posts, don't you Sand!

Oh so you werent disagreeing with the fact that Gerry Adams hasnt dared to sue the Observer? In which case, what was your point beyond attempting distraction? And you still havent provided a plausible alternative to my conclusion.

We know SF cant string together a plausible economic policy, but surely you can at least get together a plausible alternative to provide some substance to all the soundbites?

I'm not sure how much effort I should put into answering a person who advocates a shoot to kill policy as the solution to the marching problem in the North, tbh.

Really sticks in your guts does it? Or just more distraction to run away from the point?

Cmon, you have to see Bloody Sunday was a regrettable necessity? Mistakes were made of course, but we have to remember what the Republicans were doing to the poor suffering British at the time. The Paras were just protecting their community from the oppressive catholics.

The Shankill Butchers were from a community under daily assualt from IRA death squads - negotiation wasnt possible so the Shankill Butchers had to defend themselves.

Cork

Originally posted by Sand

How did anyone take seriously the SF participation in the anti-war organisations? Its laughable given their refusal to condemn violence that is at *least* as inexscusable. .

SF had a problem getting into the politics of condemnation about IRA activities.

But SF has absolutely no problem getting into the politics of condemnation about other issues.

SF always seemed to believe the IRA were "at war". But now they go on about the war in Iraq.

They go on about that GW Bush and he had no UN mandate to go to war but they never seem to mention that the IRA had very little support for their "war" also.

But at least they have seem how futile violence is. It has taken them a long time to come to this realisation with the help of democratic partys north and south of the boarder.

I am hopeful that Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern will now be in a position that all activity by the IRA needs to cease. I wish both well with regard to this.

ecksor

Originally posted by Earthman
Ecksor wasn't it only after the IRA ceasefire and the implimentation of the GFA that Sinn Feins support rocketed in the north, mainly at the expense of the SDLP?

Correct, but are you saying that this was the case in the early 70s when initiatives like Sunningdale were attempted? That is the period we're talking about here, no?

ecksor

Originally posted by Sand
You at the very least implied it was a regretable necessity, when it wasnt.

I don't believe I implied that. I don't know if it was or it wasn't but many people felt it was, no? I was never in a position to make that call and I'm very glad that I wasn't and I hope I never do have to.

I asked you a question which you chose not to answer but instead responded to with a rather irritating comment about bloody sunday and Shankill. It's a very simple question to know where the people who are aware and do care but vote for them anyway stand in your list of categories. I'd imagine that group includes people who did think it was a necessity and people who think it wasn't.

I didnt say it made sense for SF to disavow their relationship with the IRA

.
.

I said I dont view SF as an electable or legitimate democratic party when they have a private army attached to them.

Ok, on a small scale of one voter's views those make sense, but on the larger scale of how people vote it translates into saying that they should disavow their relationship before they open the way to being elected, so they seem slightly contradictory in that sense.

Until SF disavow the IRA and normalise their relations with them - i.e. end the dual membership, then Im sorry, I will continue to criticise them.

I don't know why you apologise for criticising a political party, I'm sure you don't mean it and I for one don't ask for it or want it to stop. I'd just prefer a more coherent form of argument.

Really sticks in your guts does it? Or just more distraction to run away from the point?

Cmon, you have to see Bloody Sunday was a regrettable necessity? Mistakes were made of course, but we have to remember what the Republicans were doing to the poor suffering British at the time. The Paras were just protecting their community from the oppressive catholics.

The Shankill Butchers were from a community under daily assualt from IRA death squads - negotiation wasnt possible so the Shankill Butchers had to defend themselves.

Here for example, either you're advocating or justifying violence against those groups that you claim weren't justified in their own violence campaigns, or you're making some form of ironic response. It's a little unclear.

Your position is quite clear and I suppose it gives you the moral highground, but it doesn't seem like a reasonable position to take in general if people in the North are to ever come to a long lasting arrangement. Your posts are probably quite good at making people agree with you who already agree with you, they're not exactly phrased in a way that's going to bring anyone else around to your way of thinking.

Cork

Here for example, either you're advocating or justifying violence against those groups that you claim weren't justified in their own violence campaigns, or you're making some form of ironic response. It's a little unclear.

This is why I admire the SDLP so much. They always made it clear where the stood with regard to violence in this country.

& we had Ferris and three other Sinn Fein TDs posed for a photograph with the men serving sentences with the murder of Jerry McCabe.

Originally posted by ecksor
Correct, but are you saying that this was the case in the early 70s when initiatives like Sunningdale were attempted? That is the period we're talking about here, no?

I was refering to the fact that as far as I can remember, Sinn Fein support took a rise at the polls during the whole Bobby Sands thing, but dipped considerably after that and showed no significant gain untill after the ceasefires.
Ergo the terrorist campaign had little support although Thatchers carry on re the h blocks got a lot of people angry around the time of the dirty protest there etc

ecksor

I can't contradict you there, but as far as I understood it the peace makers didn't get the required support in the 70s to make it work.

David-[RLD]-

Originally posted by Agent Orange
I have no doubt that if the SF voters was living in the UK they would be voting BNP. Their prejudices blind them to the violence these organisations implicitly support.

Actually, I think if that Sinn Féin supporters were living in the "UK", they would be voting Sinn Féin.

Just a point..

Mighty_Mouse

I have no doubt that if the SF voters was living in the UK they would be voting BNP. Their prejudices blind them to the violence these organisations implicitly support.

in line with Sinn Feins inclusive minority focused policies I take it! Or maybe it was their non-racist anti-referendum stance that makes you belive the above?

Mighty_Mouse

They always made it clear where the stood with regard to violence in this country.

yep, the SDLP were consistant if anything!! ("Anything you say Britain" policys are so progressive)

Sand

I don't believe I implied that. I don't know if it was or it wasn't but many people felt it was, no? I was never in a position to make that call and I'm very glad that I wasn't and I hope I never do have to.

If you say so, and whoever believed it or believes it is inconsequential as the thread covered not so long ago when the issue of 92% of intelligent people believing SF and the IRA to be one and the same came up and was shot down.

I asked you a question which you chose not to answer but instead responded to with a rather irritating comment about bloody sunday and Shankill. It's a very simple question to know where the people who are aware and do care but vote for them anyway stand in your list of categories. I'd imagine that group includes people who did think it was a necessity and people who think it wasn't.

I thought I did answer it - is youre going to argue that the IRA was a regretable necessity, then by definition so mustve been the Paras shooting the civil rights marches, and the shankill butchers abducting and murdering people. There are afterall, all part of the same political mess that apparently made violence inevitable, and indeed acceptable to many and they all employed violence against civillians to achieve their goal.

I would definitly hold those "regretable necessity" crowd in the first group, they dont care that SF and the IRA are one and the same do they - I would hold those who argue that "our terrorism was regretably necessary, everyone elses terrorism wasnt" in an even lower sub category of that first group.

Ok, on a small scale of one voter's views those make sense, but on the larger scale of how people vote it translates into saying that they should disavow their relationship before they open the way to being elected, so they seem slightly contradictory in that sense.

I dont think so - could you seriously respect a SF Minister for Justice when theyre linked to the most notorious terrorist groups, heavily involved in organised crime?

I dont think people should vote for SF if they respect the basic principles that underpin the state and the democratic tradition of this state. You dont have to be democrats to get elected democratically. History is littered with too many examples of populists who do irreversible damage to their states when they get elected. When exactly do we take the stabilisers of SF and expect them to sit at the adult table like an adult without a armalite in the other hand? Before or after they are elected into government?

I don't know why you apologise for criticising a political party, I'm sure you don't mean it and I for one don't ask for it or want it to stop. I'd just prefer a more coherent form of argument.

Id love to get a coherent counter-argument but hey.....

Your position is quite clear and I suppose it gives you the moral highground, but it doesn't seem like a reasonable position to take in general if people in the North are to ever come to a long lasting arrangement. Your posts are probably quite good at making people agree with you who already agree with you, they're not exactly phrased in a way that's going to bring anyone else around to your way of thinking.

To be honest - Im not a politician and this isnt an election so I dont have to lie,deceive or compromise. I couldnt care less if I was the only person who thinks as I think - Some of my views are as unpopular as others are popular but thats not much to me. Im not interested in persuading anyone to my point of view - youve every right to be wrong as far as Im concerned. Im just putting my views across and backing them up.

ecksor

Id love to get a coherent counter-argument but hey.....

Well, I hope I haven't rambled as much as you have. It seemed as if you weren't answering my questions but just using them as an excuse to post about the horrors of violence, but fair enough, let me see if I'm starting to make sense of your posts now.

Your stance, as I understand it now, is that Sinn Fein just shouldn't be voted for, that a vote for them is a vote against democracy (is it democratic to believe that another person's vote is a wrong vote?) and any discussion that assumes they have a right to be taken seriously in the democratic process is impossible, therefore you actually prefer that they maintain their links with the IRA because you believe it is an honest representation of what demons they actually are.

If so it is probably safe to say that we're not going to generate any useful discussion between us.

Im not interested in persuading anyone to my point of view - youve every right to be wrong as far as Im concerned. Im just putting my views across and backing them up.

What's the point of posting on the politics forum if not to try to post in a persuasive or at least a thought-provoking manner? Or too read in the hope that you'll find something that makes you think. That doesn't imply dishonesty.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
yep, the SDLP were consistant if anything!! ("Anything you say Britain" policys are so progressive)

Thats a sweeping statement ,care to back it up? or are you indirectly saying that John Humes huge vote over the years was tacit support by nationalists of an "anything you say Britain" policy?
Thats the implication of your sweeping statement.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
yep, the SDLP were consistant if anything!! ("Anything you say Britain" policys are so progressive)

This statement sums up Mighty_Mouse's attitude to, and knowledge of, the NI Peace Process.

Mighty_Mouse

This statement sums up Mighty_Mouse's .... knowledge of, the NI Peace Process

Oh I love it!! lol Reefbreak attacking my knowledge of the Peace process!! From the poster who struggled to name current members of Sinn Fein who were found guilty of murder whilst in the the IRA!!! (Common "knowledge" me thinks!)

Sinn Féin terrorist wing, the IRA, murdered over 1800 people since 1969. Do you honestly believe that not one of those murderers is not now a member of Sinn Féin. Yes or No?

Had to rely on another poster to help you out Reefbreak, didn't ya?

I can't believe that I forgot state to Irish1 that Martin McGuinness has actually admitted to membership of the IRA in the past. Ditto with Gerry Kelly and Joe Cahill

I didn't really mention this first time round but FFS when accused of lacking knowledge, the temptation is too much!

My point is that I wouldn't like to turn political debates into general knowledge quizes but you of all people Reefbreak should keep your head down on this particular issue!:D

ReefBreak

Oh for crying out loud. I hate to descend to MM's style of writing, but snide and childish isn't enough to describe it. I've read and studied enough on Northern Ireland (in sec. school, in college, since graduation) through the years that I don't think I really need to defend my knowledge on the subject. To jump on a post where I omitted to remind people of the fact that McGuinness/Cahill/Kelly are self-confessed terrorists (a very obvious omission, I'll admit) , and to accuse me of ignorance of history based on that, is childish to the extreme. To hear it from someone with the writing calibre of Mighty Mouse makes it worse.

I've never "ignored" anyone on Boards before, but now I'm thinking of ending that.

To paraphrase Mighty-Mouse: "LOL, ROFLMAO, , u sux, c u l8r dude! FFS NOT!" Etc, etc...

David-[RLD]-

You see, the thing is, ReefBreak, that I believe Mighty_Mouse has something called a "sense of humour". I can tell that he doesn't sit in front of his computer formulating plans for "The Downfall of ReefBreak" and ripping his pubic hair out just because you fault his every word. He can take a joke. You can't be 100% serious all the time. Remember: "all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." I suspect he finds every one of your posts very funny, because I sure as hell do.

How about we start a Loyalist-bashing thread? It'd be easy, due to lack of said enemies on Boards.

To paraphrase quank: "OMG WP LOLZ GG REEFBREAK j00 SUXX0RZ" Ahh gotta love quankardson.

ReefBreak

Once is funny, 50 times is annoying.

Originally posted by David-[RLD]-
How about we start a Loyalist-bashing thread? It'd be easy, due to lack of said enemies on Boards.

I love to have a loyalist-bashing thread. Problem is, is that there are no loyalists on Boards.ie/politics.

ecksor

How do you know that?

ReefBreak

I don't. I've just never seen any pro-loyalist threads on this board.

Which is not to say that there aren't any.

David-[RLD]-

"Once is funny, 50 times is annoying."

Just like your posts.

And yes, how do you know there are no Loyalists? You aren't a Godlike-admin, and I doubt you know every single member in the Politics forum or the whole of Boards.

ReefBreak

Agreed David, I don't know. But I have yet to see a single poster on this board who might be a unionist or a loyalist. Like I said, that doesn't mean that there aren't any.

Mighty_Mouse

I find your logic strange Reefbreak. You questioned my knowledge and understanding of NI. What kind of a response did you expect?

I really don't want to get personal here, but you've struggled with facts constantly in here IMO which is why I looked (as far as only two pages previously) to find an incidence.
Or maybe it's your writing style thats the problem. Typical example:
""
Reefbreak: Sinn Fein use IRA drug-dealing money for election posters
Mighty_Mouse: Really? Have you any evidence or whats you argument based on? I mean what makes you think that
a) Sinn Fein use IRA money
b) IRA are drug-dealers

Reefbreak: You proove they don't. I mean do you honestly think with all the things the IRA did, they're not doing this?

Mighty_Mouse: For the record , no I don't, but you made the accusation Reefbreak. I'm just trying to understand what your argument is based on? (or some slightly sarcastic reply!)

Reefbreak: No, its equally up to you to disprove?

Mighty_mouse: but that doesn't make sense

Reefbreak: yes it does? are you afraid you'll get caught out!

Mighty_mouse: I give up!
"""
Again I hate "general knowlede" political debates but your condemnation of my knowledge on the North was a little TOO ironic.;) Also maybe your posting style influences mine. Personally I don't see a problem with my posting style and I'd describe it a long way from comic-book.