Supporting a party with links to a terrorist organisation

Jackie laughlin

There is a tendency creeping in here to accept that members of SF/IRA who didn't actually kill anyone bear no responsibility. All members, voters and supporters share some responsibility.

If I vote for FF, PDs or Labour, I am to a degree responsible for what they do. I'm certainly responsible for giving them encouragement.

I'm interested too in the media sanitising these people. Surely, a convicted killer or gun runner shouldn't be treated as normal. I mean a drug dealer or a paedophile emerging from jail would not be treated seriously if they spoke on routine political matters unless they first showed remorse, expressed regret over what they had done and made it obvious that they no longer had any contact with their former criminal colleagues.

sceptre

my_house wrote:

jackie - i find so many flaws with your reasoning.

I for one am very interested in reading them. How about listing them?

my_house

unfortunately going by the boards rules, i might be accussed of attacking the poster as I find most of Jackies basis for his post based on sketchy enough information gleaned from sitting back and looking at things that have happened and stating how bad things are. I would have to refer to other times in history etc etc and make comparisons to now which wouldnt be in keeping with the thread, henceforth I have to decline the offer of elaborating.

Diogenes

my_house wrote:

unfortunately going by the boards rules, i might be accussed of attacking the poster as I find most of Jackies basis for his post based on sketchy enough information gleaned from sitting back and looking at things that have happened and stating how bad things are. I would have to refer to other times in history etc etc and make comparisons to now which wouldnt be in keeping with the thread, henceforth I have to decline the offer of elaborating.

Is your problem with Jackie? or with his reasoning? Its seems perfectly reasonable, the person who, votes for a terrorist, or gives succor and support to a terrorist, while knowing full well that they are a terrorist while doing so, must shoulder some responsibility for the terrorists actions.

What exactly is flawed about that logic?

my_house

Is your problem with Jackie? or with his reasoning? Its seems perfectly reasonable, the person who, votes for a terrorist, or gives succor and support to a terrorist, while knowing full well that they are a terrorist while doing so, must shoulder some responsibility for the terrorists actions.

the problem is that unless you are in the shoes of those supporting, then you cant make such rash statements, not unless you believe humans are not and cannot be affected by their environment. If you havent lived there, experienced the experience then how dare anyone critise those who have. again though I'd have to drag in info about maybe ww2 where people had to kill others and how that can be classed idfferently but i wont as its stretching the thread, but basically unless you walk in a mans shoes (which tobe honest in relation to the nborth not too many of the SF bashers actually have - and I mean live there for years, not until one was 3 or soemthing) and experienced what turns people to supporting the IRA - well unless you have that then iuts best not to degrade those who have as the person doing the degrading mightnt exactly have a full understanding.

Diogenes

my_house wrote:

the problem is that unless you are in the shoes of those supporting, then you cant make such rash statements, not unless you believe humans are not and cannot be affected by their environment. If you havent lived there, experienced the experience then how dare anyone critise those who have.

I reject that assertion. Plenty of people live up north who want no part with either side in the conflict.

Furhtermore to claim no one who "wasn't there" has no business expressing an opinion on a subject is such a sweeping claim, as it would mean no one could comment on anything, that happened anywhere? By your rational I am forbidden to have an opinion on the Iraq war, government spending on the health service, or the lord of the rings trilogy, because I wasn't there

again though I'd have to drag in info about maybe ww2 where people had to kill others and how that can be classed idfferently but i wont as its stretching the thread, but basically unless you walk in a mans shoes (which tobe honest in relation to the nborth not too many of the SF bashers actually have - and I mean live there for years, not until one was 3 or soemthing) and experienced what turns people to supporting the IRA - well unless you have that then iuts best not to degrade those who have as the person doing the degrading mightnt exactly have a full understanding.

In the mists of all that shoddy grammar the claim that you have to be from the north lived in the north before you're allowed to even express an opinion on the north is repeated. I've plenty of first and second hand sources to draw my opinion about the conflict, to jeer dismissively that everyone who wasn't born off the Shankill road should shut up is a form of censorship, basically trying to justify the unjustifiable by saying "you weren't there so shut it"

Jackie laughlin

Firstly, if one had to have direct experience in order to comment, study and thought would be irrelevant and few people could comment on most issues.

Secondly, I have direct experience. I live in a fragile, democratic Ireland whose stability is threatened by fascists. There is a gun runner sitting in my parliament.

Moreover, I have received direct threats from these people. I was phoned many time in the middle of the night when an organisation with which I was involved refused to support the hunger strikers. Recently, at a public gathering, while listening to a speaker, I was made to move under duress to a place behind a SF banner.

my_house

Diogenes wrote:

I reject that assertion. Plenty of people live up north who want no part with either side in the conflict.

Furhtermore to claim no one who "wasn't there" has no business expressing an opinion on a subject is such a sweeping claim, as it would mean no one could comment on anything, that happened anywhere? By your rational I am forbidden to have an opinion on the Iraq war, government spending on the health service, or the lord of the rings trilogy, because I wasn't there



In the mists of all that shoddy grammar the claim that you have to be from the north lived in the north before you're allowed to even express an opinion on the north is repeated. I've plenty of first and second hand sources to draw my opinion about the conflict, to jeer dismissively that everyone who wasn't born off the Shankill road should shut up is a form of censorship, basically trying to justify the unjustifiable by saying "you weren't there so shut it"

shoddy grammer - is that attacking the poster (intelligence etc) or the words?

my claim is that if people cant be bothered taking into consideration what makes people do things, then its best to keep quiet. you dont have to be from the north, but to say anyone who ever support the IRA or SF is a murderer etc etc etc - thats justs going too far and cant be substantiated.

sceptre

I've split this from the McConville thread, partly to ensure that thread stays on topic and partly because this is a discussion worthy in its own right outside the confines of that thread.

sceptre

my_house wrote:

I would have to refer to other times in history etc etc and make comparisons to now which wouldnt be in keeping with the thread, henceforth I have to decline the offer of elaborating.

I'd say that given that this is now in its own thread that this particular obstacle has been removed.

Jackie laughlin

No one would say that anyone who ever supported or voted for SF/IRA is a murderer. They are, however, responsible for giving their support to murder. Similarly, if a person voted for, say, the PDs they would be responsible for privatisation of state assets. We all know what we're doing when we vote.


Anyone with a shred of humanity has tried to understand the motivations of murderers. It is rash to assume that someone who condemns an action has not made genuine efforts to understand that action.

Diogenes

my_house wrote:

shoddy grammer - is that attacking the poster (intelligence etc) or the words?

Its saying I'm struggling to understand your point, you're not putting it forward in a coherant manner.

my claim is that if people cant be bothered taking into consideration what makes people do things, then its best to keep quiet.

And is anyone here not taking that into consideration? This steems from the IRA's expressed reason for murdering Mc Conville, people have put forward an alternative explaination.

And I suggest you take a look at the more complex reasons why people do "things", while I'll agree many IRA men joined up to protect their communities and unite Ireland, many more had less altrustic reasons, I'd suggest you start looking at Slab Murphy at little closer, for a start.

you dont have to be from the north, but to say anyone who ever support the IRA or SF is a murderer etc etc etc - thats justs going too far and cant be substantiated.

I'll think you'll find not a single soul on this thread said "anyone who ever supported the IRA or SF is a murderer", the closest anyone comes to such a claim is Jackie said "All members, voters and supporters share some responsibility." He does not call them murderers.

RedPlanet

Are all Germans guilty too?
Since they (the ones living during the big one) were probably working or something and thereby supporting via their labour and taxes, the SS and the extermination of people.

How about present day American's?
They are going about paying taxes that build bombs and bullets that kill Iraqi women and children. At a far greater scale then the IRA did.

joebhoy1916

Diogenes wrote:

I'd suggest you start looking at Slab Murphy at little closer, for a start.

I'll think you'll find not a single soul on this thread said "anyone who ever supported the IRA or SF is a murderer", the closest anyone comes to such a claim is Jackie said "All members, voters and supporters share some responsibility." He does not call them murderers.

So someone who supports Sinn Fein who may not even have been alive when she was killed its there responsibility! B/S

What about Slab he has land going from north to south easy for the IRA at the time to carry out attacks then come down south!

Diogenes

RedPlanet wrote:

Are all Germans guilty too?
Since they (the ones living during the big one) were probably working or something and thereby supporting via their labour and taxes, the SS and the extermination of people.

Yeah, not sure if Godwin's law applies to this site.

But the point that whistles over your head, is not every german was a nazi. People made a conscious decision to join the party. And some people played a more enthuastic roll in the holocaust.

A camap guard bears some responsibility, as does the man who drove the train there, or the man who brought the food and could see the how little food was coming in for so many people.

How about present day American's?
They are going about paying taxes that build bombs and bullets that kill Iraqi women and children. At a far greater scale then the IRA did.

Once again you are comparing a greater crime to a lesser crime in order to defend your crime, reprehensible logic.

Most americans are complicity and involved in this war, in fact 49% of Americans voted aganist Bush.

On the other hand SF supporters made a conscious decision to support a party with a paramilitary wing, to equate that to both US citizens and WW2 german citizens is just highly dubious.

joeyboy wrote:

So someone who supports Sinn Fein who may not even have been alive when she was killed its there responsibility! B/S

No joeyboy but you are supporting a party and their terrorist wing who refuse to consider her murder is a crime. You cannot divorce that stance from the rest of SFs policies.

What about Slab he has land going from north to south easy for the IRA at the time to carry out attacks then come down south!

Slab is among a select group of republicans who have made an enormous amount of money on the back of this "struggle" is the point you are missing, my-house wants us to consider "why" people got involved, I don't think he even contemptables greed was a propellent for some IRA volunteers.

RedPlanet

Diogenes

You're posting complete bollox.
My comparison was spot on.
Compare: a person places a mark on a paper "voting ballet" for SF (a legal political party).
The other person pays taxes that builds actual munitions that are currently being used against undefended persons in another country.

If you're going to argue to castigate one group, and treat them as pariahs, then you better have a closer look around you.

Why do you believe that marking a paper "voting ballet" for say... the Opposition, gets you off the hook? You're still paying taxes, still financially contributing to murder.

I say, placing a mark on a "voting ballet" is a bit of a joke tbh. It doesn't particularly matter which way you vote, or if you don't vote at all (interestingly i wonder where you put those people? Are they among the guilty or the innocent?)

Here's another example for you.
Lets say i work for Lockheed and Martin, manufacturing weapons of war in, and for, USA.
I know that those weapons are built to be used, and in the current climate, they'll be used in 3rd world countries that are incapable of defending themselves like Iraq or Afghanistan.
Now when i go to the polls, i vote "Democratic Party".
So by your "logic" i'm off the hook.
Totally innocent huh?

ISAW

my_house wrote:

shoddy grammer - is that attacking the poster (intelligence etc) or the words?

my claim is that if people cant be bothered taking into consideration what makes people do things, then its best to keep quiet. you dont have to be from the north, but to say anyone who ever support the IRA or SF is a murderer etc etc etc - thats justs going too far and cant be substantiated.

this is the classic error committed usually by Loyalists and Unionists. In the above case it is committed by a sympathiser of Republicsn Terrorism. One can cunderstand the reasons why people do things without hoving to justify the actions based on those reasons. Repub;icans can understand the reasons why peoblems ecsist in the north. But most (in fact the vast majority of Irish ) Republicans do NOT support either SF or the IRA. SF themselves support ONLY the PIRA. SF oppose all other IRA's!

Most Republicans CAN understand the resons for the peoblems but it is only those who support SF or the IRA whether CIRA RIRA OIRA or PIRA or any of the other REpublican terror groups who fail to condemn them and who justify their actions.

Sleepy

my_house wrote:

the problem is that unless you are in the shoes of those supporting, then you cant make such rash statements, not unless you believe humans are not and cannot be affected by their environment. If you havent lived there, experienced the experience then how dare anyone critise those who have. again though I'd have to drag in info about maybe ww2 where people had to kill others and how that can be classed idfferently but i wont as its stretching the thread, but basically unless you walk in a mans shoes (which tobe honest in relation to the nborth not too many of the SF bashers actually have - and I mean live there for years, not until one was 3 or soemthing) and experienced what turns people to supporting the IRA - well unless you have that then iuts best not to degrade those who have as the person doing the degrading mightnt exactly have a full understanding.

I've avoided the politics board for nearly a year because of people like yourself and I promised myself I wouldn't get dragged into IRA/Sinn Fein threads again as they have a tendency to get me banned when I speak my mind in them but I have to call you out on this post.

Using your logic, no Irish Citizen living in the Republic of Ireland has the right to an opinion on the North as we "haven't lived there". I'd like to agree with this. Can we take Sinn Fein / IRA out of our parliament and off our ballot papers now and let the UK deal with their own mess please?

To get back on topic, on this issue, I agree wholeheartedly with the OP. Voting for FF means you shoulder some of the responsibility for their incompetence and corruption; voting for the Socialist Worker's Party means you shoulder some of the responsibility for their naieveté; voting for Sinn Fein/IRA means you shoulder some of the responsibility for supporting murderers, drug dealers and criminals; voting for Fine Gael means you shoulder for some of their... well, I've forgotten what they're to be criticised for they've done so little in the last few years... but you get my drift.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

I disagree

Can we take Sinn Fein / IRA out of our parliament and off our ballot papers now and let the UK deal with their own mess please?

There is no party called Sinn Féin/IRA. Would you care to share the evidence and the ‘dogs on the street know it’ sort of evidence does not cut it? The fact is that support for Sinn Féin will grow as it has done and eventually they will get into power and end up becoming another FF. I would rather see constitutional nationalists move to forefront and keep the guns in the past. FF, FG and Labour are all parties who emerged from the shadow of the gunman. Anyway, what you want doesn’t matter. Ireland will be united. More and more former alleged volunteers will sit in the Dáil and perhaps gain power and rule over you and me whether you like it or not.

Diogenes

RedPlanet wrote:

Diogenes

You're posting complete bollox.

Here's another example for you.
Lets say i work for Lockheed and Martin, manufacturing weapons of war in, and for, USA.
I know that those weapons are built to be used, and in the current climate, they'll be used in 3rd world countries that are incapable of defending themselves like Iraq or Afghanistan.
Now when i go to the polls, i vote "Democratic Party".
So by your "logic" i'm off the hook.
Totally innocent huh?

You've switched the goalposted you've started by saying all voters now it's just workers for a arms dealer.

I'd never work for an arms maker. I could not or would not. In much the same way I could not or would not vote for SF it would be morally reprehensible. You've yet to explain why such a vote would be okay.

In much the same way I would be appalled by an enviromentalist working for a oil company or a human rights activist working for the BNP.

Your consist justification for a SF vote is to point to a greater of two evils and say "hey it could be worse we could be these guys" Thats not a ringing endorsement. For anyone.

joebhoy1916

What political party do you support?

PD'S?

Maybe you should stand in elections then if you get elected you can speak your mind in the Dail.

biko

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There is a tendency creeping in here to accept that members of SF/IRA who didn't actually kill anyone bear no responsibility. All members, voters and supporters share some responsibility.

If I vote for FF, PDs or Labour, I am to a degree responsible for what they do. I'm certainly responsible for giving them encouragement.

I'm interested too in the media sanitising these people. Surely, a convicted killer or gun runner shouldn't be treated as normal. I mean a drug dealer or a paedophile emerging from jail would not be treated seriously if they spoke on routine political matters unless they first showed remorse, expressed regret over what they had done and made it obvious that they no longer had any contact with their former criminal colleagues.

Join date June 2006 and you see tendencies in this forum? If you lurked/posted as someone else here before you'd see that these opinions has always been here, at least as long as I can remember (1 year ).
Some posters differentiate between SF and IRA.
Some posters have never been north but have seen terrible things on the telly.
Some posters believe that you should be let back into society after serving time for trying to force an foreign force out.
Some posters wants to cement over the North and build a big IKEA there.

We all have a "right*" to be heard here. I'd say that there are more anti-republican posters here than republican so you can rest assured that it won't turn into a IRA recruitment centre.

*private board = no rights

Jackie laughlin

Some do argue for a benign outcome in which SF merges with FF and we all live happily ever after. However, there is no sign of SF repudiating the IRA. Moreover, SF/IRA want to rule local areas and in quite a few places do so.

SF/IRA have now accepted partition. Their objective is fascist rule not Irish unity. True they will continue to bleat about unification especially for their US financiers. In Ireland - unknown to the US financiers - people in poor estates are sold a bogus socialist line.

(Incidentally, the Labour Party unlike FF and FG did not derive from SF. It was formed to copy the emerging British Labour Party.)

There are degrees of responsibility ranging from direct action to staying silent when faced by evil.

If Nazi Germany is to have a place in this discussion, it should be remembered that Hitler and his party came to power via an election at which voters knew precisely what the Nazis were about.

biko

Jackie laughlin wrote:

If Nazi Germany is to have a place in this discussion, it should be remembered that Hitler and his party came to power via an election at which voters knew precisely what the Nazis were about.

Godwin's Law Just waited for that.

Diorraing

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There is a tendency creeping in here to accept that members of SF/IRA who didn't actually kill anyone bear no responsibility. All members, voters and supporters share some responsibility.

If I vote for FF, PDs or Labour, I am to a degree responsible for what they do. I'm certainly responsible for giving them encouragement.

I'm interested too in the media sanitising these people. Surely, a convicted killer or gun runner shouldn't be treated as normal. I mean a drug dealer or a paedophile emerging from jail would not be treated seriously if they spoke on routine political matters unless they first showed remorse, expressed regret over what they had done and made it obvious that they no longer had any contact with their former criminal colleagues.

Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were born out of "terrorists", does that mean that everyone who voted for Eamonn de Valera endorse terrorism. The IRA are gone and decommissioned and its not help people like you trying to reopen old wounds. OK, so people voted for and endorsed their military campaign, they had their reasons for doing so, and maybe they were endorsing terrorism but in their eyes it was necessary to achieve their civil rights

Jackie laughlin

Unfortunately early SF did NOT make their intentions clear. Had they said they supported murder and mayhem, then a vote at the time for Dev would clearly have supported violence.

The IRA still exists. As I've already said, I saw them marching in their jackboots at the head of this year's SF parade, "Make Partition History, in Dublin. Why do they still exist? They enforce SF/IRA rule in the areas they control and seek to control.

Sgt. Sensible

Ireland's been kept in the political dark ages because of 80 years of civil war division nonsense, I hope the next 80 won't be about the Troubles.

lostexpectation

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There is a tendency creeping in here to accept that members of SF/IRA who didn't actually kill anyone bear no responsibility. All members, voters and supporters share some responsibility.

If I vote for FF, PDs or Labour, I am to a degree responsible for what they do. I'm certainly responsible for giving them encouragement.

I'm interested too in the media sanitising these people. Surely, a convicted killer or gun runner shouldn't be treated as normal. I mean a drug dealer or a paedophile emerging from jail would not be treated seriously if they spoke on routine political matters unless they first showed remorse, expressed regret over what they had done and made it obvious that they no longer had any contact with their former criminal colleagues.

jackie do you no notion of how many politicians and political parties around the world have former terrorists in them? how about nelson mandela for the obvious eg?

cop on

it be hard to find any party that didn't start off with a paramilatary org, FF and FG included...

you FF/PD have their own army too

cyrus the virus

The Provisional Irish Republican Army has decommissioned their arms. A huge step.

Independent Monitoring Commission latest report as of May 2006 wrote:

It remains our absolutely clear view that the PIRA leadership has committed itself to following a peaceful path. It is working to bring the whole organisation fully along with it and has expended considerable effort to refocus the movement in support of its objective. In the last three months this process has involved the further dismantling of PIRA as a military structure.

its report made the following comments about current PIRA activity

Independent Monitoring Commission latest report as of May 2006 wrote:

We are not aware of current terrorist, paramilitary or violent activity sanctioned by the leadership. We have had no indications in the last three months of training, engineering activity, recent recruitment or targeting for the purposes of attack. There has now been a substantial erosion in PIRA’s capacity to return to a military campaign without a significant period of build-up, which in any event we do not believe they have any intentions of doing. The instructions we have previously mentioned to refrain from violence or rioting still stand.

So SF have broken there links with the terrorist organisation since it is no longer.

Last I heard the Real Irish Republican Army is still atcive, this was a small breakaway from the Provisional IRA, formed in 1986 by those opposed to Sinn Féin taking seats in Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Irish parliament. SF also have no links with the Real Irish Republican Army.its report made the following comments about current PIRA activity

If we're gonna go down this road then:

One can also say that all DUPs are "terrorist" since Ian Paisly, Peter Robinson and Ivan Foster did found Ulster Resistance.

All Germans are nazis etc

Rock Climber

Diorraing wrote:

Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were born out of "terrorists", does that mean that everyone who voted for Eamonn de Valera endorse terrorism.

They endorsed the civil war yes.For years FG voters and FF voters had one track minds as to who to vote for and it was all based on civil war politics.
Thats much less so now.

It of course does not mean that they endorsed murder and mahem in todays society.

The IRA are gone and decommissioned and its not help people like you trying to reopen old wounds.

The children,now grieving adults of Mrs mcConville had to listen to Sf representatives basically say it was ok for their mother to be murdered and her body hidden like a dog on questions and answers.For a modern political party to do that was not only a mistake, it was reprehensible and uncivilised.The carry on with regard to Garda McCabe is similar and equally reprehensible.

Rock Climber

RedPlanet wrote:

Diogenes

You're posting complete bollox.

That kind of language is unnecessary when debating.It's reserved on this board only in small measure for moderators who have decided a poster is acting the muppet.Dont let me see it again.

My comparison was spot on.
Compare: a person places a mark on a paper "voting ballet" for SF (a legal political party).

Why do you feel the need to point out SF is a legal party? No one disputes that or peoples rights to either vote for it or hold similar opinions to ti.
What the opposing side to you merely frequently point out are that they think those voters are misguided.

The other person pays taxes that builds actual munitions that are currently being used against undefended persons in another country.

If you're going to argue to castigate one group, and treat them as pariahs, then you better have a closer look around you.

I see so you are defacto saying its alright to support a party that indirectly and directly are apoligists for a murdering and crime campaign because 0.0001% of your spending has found its way through taxes or some other route to a governments munitions spend :rolleyes:

Doesnt wash that...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

RedPlanet

Diogenes wrote:

You've switched the goalposted you've started by saying all voters now it's just workers for a arms dealer.

I haven't switched any goalpost whatsoever. I am calling you out on the topic of this thread:

from the OP:
"There is a tendency creeping in here to accept that members of SF/IRA who didn't actually kill anyone bear no responsibility. All members, voters and supporters share some responsibility.
If I vote for FF, PDs or Labour, I am to a degree responsible for what they do. I'm certainly responsible for giving them encouragement."

You have come onboard and posted in support of such a position.
What I am saying, is that that viewpoint is bigotted because ye are trying to discriminate against a group of people because of the way in which they mark their ballet papers.

Diogenes wrote:

You've yet to explain why such a vote would be okay.

Such is your allegation, why else do you state that 49% of American's voted against Bush? Does voting against Bush mean that you aren't part and parcel of the war machine? [No] And that is precisely what i pointed out by raising the example of the Lockheed and Martin employee.

Diogenes wrote:

Your consist justification for a SF vote is to point to a greater of two evils and say "hey it could be worse we could be these guys" Thats not a ringing endorsement. For anyone.

I have not justifiied voting for SF at all so i don't know where your getting that from. But i am pointing out that ye "humanitarians" that are so concerned with IRA activity seem to ignore the far greater scale of human suffering inflicted by other partys around you.

Diogenes

Redplanet wrote:

You have come onboard and posted in support of such a position.
What I am saying, is that that viewpoint is bigotted because ye are trying to discriminate against a group of people because of the way in which they mark their ballet papers.

How is it bigotry? Bigotry is an irrational intolerance of a social group. I'm merely saying that by supporting SF now you are supporting a politcal party who try and create some wiggle room between "the cold blooded killing of a woman" and "murder". By supporting SF 20 years ago you were giving defacto support to their active paramilitary wing, ergo had to take some responsibilty for that party and their paramilitary wing, actions.

Let me ask you, what do you think voting SF means?

Such is your allegation, why else do you state that 49% of American's voted against Bush? Does voting against Bush mean that you aren't part and parcel of the war machine? [No] And that is precisely what i pointed out by raising the example of the Lockheed and Martin employee.

By voting for Bush, or by working for lockheed and Martin, people are making a conscious and active decision that they either support or find acceptable that company or governments policies. Therefore they must accept some level of responsibility for those actions. Similiar to voting for SF.

Frankly the point you are trying to make is to muddy the waters. I would not work for Lockheed and Martin, nor would I vote SF as I find both unacceptable. By ranting about some arms manufactor you are simply trying to justify voting SF by pointing at some other greater wrong.

I have not justifiied voting for SF at all so i don't know where your getting that from. But i am pointing out that ye "humanitarians" that are so concerned with IRA activity seem to ignore the far greater scale of human suffering inflicted by other partys around you.

Hardly and yet again you wearily try and deflect attention from the wrongdoing's of SF/IRA by waving at a greater wrong.

I am not ignoring the suffering inflicted by other partys around me, however the discussion at hand is about SF/IRA and you're trying to run this debate away, by pointing to Iraq or any other conflict and saying "well thats worse"

You cannot justify any wrong doing commited by anyone by pointing out a greater wrongdoing and saying "well that's worse". No system of morality justifies its own crimes by pointing at a unconnected greater crime

Zombrex

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I'm interested too in the media sanitising these people. Surely, a convicted killer or gun runner shouldn't be treated as normal.

Its not the purpose or role of the media to judge which news sources are worthy enought to be reported. If the new source is news then it should be reported. Like it or not statements from Sinn Fein, and statements from the IRA, are news.

Zombrex

biko wrote:

Godwin's Law Just waited for that.

LOL

Nazi comparisons should just be banned from Boards.ie ... thought that would probably wipe half the database

oscarBravo

lostexpectation wrote:

cop on

Per Rock Climber's post above, this is drifting close to the line also.

lostexpectation wrote:

you FF/PD have their own army too

Oh yes? What army is that, then? I know you couldn't possibly be talking about the Defence Forces, as they are patently our army, answerable to our elected government - not a private army, answerable to none of us.

Sleepy

I disagree wrote:

There is no party called Sinn Féin/IRA. Would you care to share the evidence and the ‘dogs on the street know it’ sort of evidence does not cut it?

Well, there's no 32 county country called Ireland, but I'm sure you'd disagree with that and I'd know what you refer to when you say "Ireland". There may not be a political party called Sinn Fein / IRA but I prefer to use that naming convention as I don't believe any separation exists between the two organisations and you know exactly who I'm referring to so let's not worry about the semantics...

The fact is that support for Sinn Féin will grow as it has done and eventually they will get into power and end up becoming another FF.

No, that's an opinion, not a fact. In my opinion, it's also a very naieve one.

I would rather see constitutional nationalists move to forefront and keep the guns in the past. FF, FG and Labour are all parties who emerged from the shadow of the gunman. Anyway, what you want doesn’t matter. Ireland will be united. More and more former alleged volunteers will sit in the Dáil and perhaps gain power and rule over you and me whether you like it or not.

As already pointed out to you, Labour did not emerge from the shadow of a gunman and to contrast the IRA of the twenties and thirties to the terrorists of the 70's, 80's and 90's is pretty facetious tbh.

What I want matters as much as what you want. And when the economic impact of unity is considered, the majority of this country are against a United Ireland (never mind the fact that the majority of Northerners are also against it). Again, the notion that Ireland will be united is a naieve opinion, rather than a fact. As for the theory that more and more former terrorists will sit in the Dáil, well, I guess we'll have to wait for the next election to see if that's going to transpire. I can guarantee you one thing though: Sinn Fein will never rule over me. I'd rather live in neo-con America thanks.

lostexpectation

oscarBravo wrote:

Per Rock Climber's post above, this is drifting close to the line also. Oh yes? What army is that, then? I know you couldn't possibly be talking about the Defence Forces, as they are patently our army, answerable to our elected government - not a private army, answerable to none of us.

I have equal detaste for the IRA as I have for the Army.

Sleepy

Sorry lostexpectation, I don't get that, what's your beef with the Irish Defence Forces?

Jackie laughlin

How many times does it need to be emphasised? Despite decommissioning the IRA still exists. It has been retained.

Wicknight,
Everytime a newspaper is published or the evening news is assembled the media decide what is newsworthy, what you and I ought to know about, and to a great extent they decide what you and I will talk about.

I consider it a parody of civilisation to allow an unapologetic gun-runner to talk about drains. Imagine if a convicted paedophile who maintained that what he was convicted for was not wrong were brought on to Questions and Answers to pose as a normal member of society talking about, say, education or law and order.

SF/IRA get a very easy time from the media, especially RTE. I appreciate that this is well intentioned as they are trying to support "the peace process". It is however misguided and may be damaging our democracy.

Zombrex

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Wicknight,
Everytime a newspaper is published or the evening news is assembled the media decide what is newsworthy, what you and I ought to know about, and to a great extent they decide what you and I will talk about.

True ...

Jackie laughlin wrote:

SF/IRA get a very easy time from the media, especially RTE.

What would you like RTE to do, refuse to air any news that involves Sinn Fein or the IRA?

How does that serve the public interest? You think the public would be just better off not knowing about what is happening in the world beyond their doorstep?

Jackie laughlin wrote:

It is however misguided and may be damaging our democracy.

You have a funny idea of democracy.

That is quite an ironic statement given that news organistations filtering news to specific events or groups that they approve of is one of the first warning signs that a country is slipping away from democracy into dictatorship.

The central requirement for a democracy is information. The population have to be informed, in an un-biased way, so they can make up their own minds.

It is not RTE's responsibility to pass judgement or opinion on Sinn Fien, the IRA, or any organistation. They are simply supposed to report what happens. You make up your own mind.

In fact that would be a very bad idea, as it would be a form of censorship, and once you start censoring the news to what the news media feels is acceptable, you have lost the main area of political information.

You mights as well just move to America and watch Fox News all day long ...

Jackie laughlin

Complete lack of bias is impossible. The decision to say "killed" as opposed to "murdered" or vice versa is a decision to take sides. Nevertheless the media can strive to be dispassionate.

I haven't and never would favour a ban on news concerning SF/IRA but they are rather good at news management. They successfully create stories and insinuate themselves into others while avoiding talk about their violence. It is the duty of journalists to sort this out in the same way as they should sort out all attempts at manipulation.

A citizen coming to a public controversy requires that all points of view appear in the media. If SF have something to say which no other source is offering, then we have to hear it. If not, let's use the other source.

Let me return to that interesting question. Why should a convicted gun runner be treated differently by the media than a convicted car thief or paedophile in a similar situation?

Sleepy

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Why should a convicted gun runner be treated differently by the media than a convicted car thief or paedophile in a similar situation?

Well we do elect the unconvicted gun runners to the Dail, let the rip us off and then give them state funerals

Jackie laughlin

Hey, Sleepy,
Is there a danger that we are going to agree on something?

joebhoy1916

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Let me return to that interesting question. Why should a convicted gun runner be treated differently by the media than a convicted car thief or paedophile in a similar situation?

Jesus christ Martin Ferris served his time can you not just leave it at that.

Sure look at the late Charlie he gave them the money to get the guns!

Who would you rather living next door to you and your kids a paedophile or an ex gun runner?

Diogenes

joebhoy1916 wrote:

Jesus christ Martin Ferris served his time can you not just leave it at that.



Who would you rather living next door to you and your kids a paedophile or an ex gun runner?

"Vote Martin Ferris, at least he's not a paedophile"

Lads I think you've found your general election slogan.

Sure look at the late Charlie he gave them the money to get the guns!

Leaving aside the contested nature of whether Haughey did or didn't give money, theres this fact; do you really think you should be pointing at Haughey, as the barometer of what is the acceptable behaviour for a politician? I'm aware he's dead and all and his politcial rehabiliation is up and running. But do you really want to be comparing Ferris to Haughey?

Jackie laughlin

I don't know of any other ex-con, who says explicitly that he regrets nothing and is unreformed, who would be allowed to present himself or herself on TV to discuss drains or justice.

Much as I'm willing to hear bad things about the late C.J. Haughey, he was not found guilty of that crime.

I wouldn't like to have any unreformed convict living next door. Gun running is accessory to murder. Is murder worse than paedophilia? Well, they're both horrible. It's a close run thing but if you insist on an answer, then OK, murder and by extention gunrunning is worse.

joebhoy1916

Not just Haughey the list goes on and on!

"I'm aware he's dead" well of course you would be unless your not from Ireland?

Why would he regret doing something that is right?

He was found not guilty because it wouldnt look good prime minister giving the IRA money and he always called thatcher a bitch god bless the man!

The whole goverment was in on giving the IRA arms ask anyone who is in the army along time them sneaking arms up to them and all the soliders on the border the taoiseach wasn't gonna stand by and let innocent catholics been murdered all the troops at one stage thought they were going over the border.