The SF Conundrum

My name is URL

No doubt that by now you all know about Martin Ferris' idiotic decision to meet the 2 men that killed Jerry McCabe upon their release from prison

Gerry Adams stated that the men had expressed their 'deep regret and apologised' for the hurt and grief caused to the families of Garda McCabe and Garda Ben O'Sullivan

On this same day, Adams condemned the lenient sentences handed to the killers of republican Harry Holland. One of them, Stephen McKee was sentenced to 12 years

Why do SF feel the need to keep up appearances with the people carrying out these atrocities?

Can they not see the damage it does to the party as a whole?

And how can a party which still openly supports murderers and other criminals even be constitutionally allowed to hold seats of power amongst our government?

slavetothegrind

10 years for the killing of a garda. ( it was murder but legally it was difficult to prove due to the retarded nature of our legal system)
Pathetic.

Ferris and his so called republicans are cowardly scum hiding behind a flag.

Those two should never have been let out.

Sand

Whats surprising about it?

The Provo position has always been that McCabe was a freestater who got what was coming to him, and the men who killed him are heroes who should be honoured by every true Irish man and woman.

Provo voters seem to agree with that.

Dont be surprised if the killers of McCabe turn up as "activists" or even as electoral candidates. There is a real constituency out there for murderers.

Fratton Fred

Does it matter to SF? They're like marmite, love em or hate em. Those that hate them will never vote for them and those that love them follow them with blind acceptance that they can do no wrong.

This won't lose them any votes, just credability.

Red Sleeping Beauty

There's a few good little pieces about the SF conundrum in the Village at the mo.

mikemac

Sand wrote: »

The Provo position has always been that McCabe was a freestater

Having worked in NI I could never understand why people used that term.

"Going shopping in the Free State over the weekend?"
"Eh, you and me weren't alive when it ceased to exist."

I just don't get it

Not aimed at you Sand

Joey the lips

This is being exhausted in after hours at the moment. Needless to day my favorate quote was

"No matter what you say about martin ferris he has always stood by his principles"

Born a republician, Raised a republician, Will die a republician


I have a nice respect for the mans principles.

weepee

I was not surprised at Ferris meeting the two being released from prison, really.

SF make no bones about they're link to IRA activists, that isnt going to change.

PS: A lot of Northern nationalist refer to the lower 26 counties as 'The Free State'.

After all, they were abandoned by the Treaty of 1921.

Knee Grow Plz

Sand wrote: »

Whats surprising about it?

The Provo position has always been that McCabe was a freestater who got what was coming to him, and the men who killed him are heroes who should be honoured by every true Irish man and woman.

Provo voters seem to agree with that.

Dont be surprised if the killers of McCabe turn up as "activists" or even as electoral candidates. There is a real constituency out there for murderers.

I read it as more of a "Ahhh for fuks sake how teh fuk are we going to PR this mess"

Rather than a call to arms.

Firetrap

It's good that things like this happen from time to time. It's a reminder to people of just what Sinn Féin stands for. They can attempt to airbrush their image all they want and wheel out shiny young candidates at elections but these old die-hards go and spoil it all every time :rolleyes:

Knee Grow Plz

Firetrap wrote: »

It's good that things like this happen from time to time. It's a reminder to people of just what political parties stand for. They can attempt to airbrush their image all they want and wheel out shiny young candidates at elections but these old die-hards go and spoil it all every time :rolleyes:

I agree.

My name is URL

Firetrap wrote: »

It's good that things like this happen from time to time. It's a reminder to people of just what Sinn Féin stands for. They can attempt to airbrush their image all they want and wheel out shiny young candidates at elections but these old die-hards go and spoil it all every time :rolleyes:

Exactly my thoughts.

I honestly was beginning to think that SF were on the verge of turning over a new leaf

They undid any progress they've made by showing their old colors today

Flamed Diving

You can polish a turd...

marco murphy

My name is URL wrote: »

Exactly my thoughts.

I honestly was beginning to think that SF were on the verge of turning over a new leaf

They undid any progress they've made by showing their old colors today

Wow, the fact that Martin Ferris collected two members of the Republican Movement has had a huge effect on your views of Sinn Fein.

weepee

What is it the Sinn Fein stands for then ?

I think they are running two agenda's.

One North.

One South.

Tho in the North, there is very little alternative to vote for, with an All Ireland agenda,
so they're pretty much secure on they're vote.

My name is URL

Perestroika wrote: »

Wow, the fact that Martin Ferris collected two members of the Republican Movement has had a huge effect on your views of Sinn Fein.

No, he collected two cop-killers

2 scumbags that tarnish what Republicanism stands for

Flamed Diving

Perestroika wrote: »

Wow, the fact that Martin Ferris collected two members of the Republican Movement has had a huge effect on your views of Sinn Fein.

Doesn't affect my view of SF in the slightest.

A Dub in Glasgo

Nor mine

Liam Byrne

Nor mine, really.

OK, it's PROOF of mine, but it doesn't change it.

nesf

Politics is tribal, personally I find it reprehensible that he met them but I can see why they needed to be met by a major SF figure for the sake of part of the base.

turgon

weepee wrote: »

A lot of Northern nationalist refer to the lower 26 counties as 'The Free State'.
After all, they were abandoned by the Treaty of 1921.

The Treaty was 88 years ago, I would hazard a guess that 98% of the nationalist you talk about weren't around then to be abandoned. But I suppose their position depends on them clinging to the past as if it were the present.

DoireNod

turgon wrote: »

The Treaty was 88 years ago, I would hazard a guess that 98% of the nationalist you talk about weren't around then to be abandoned. But I suppose their position depends on them clinging to the past as if it were the present.

Just because they weren't around when it came into effect, doesn't mean they aren't affected by it. You can't deny that things which happen now will have an impact, however directly or indirectly, on future generations - just as partition effectively abandoned the Irish people in the North at the time and all the generations since.

djpbarry

DoireNod wrote: »

Just because they weren't around when it came into effect, doesn't mean they aren't affected by it. You can't deny that things which happen now will have an impact, however directly or indirectly, on future generations...

Of course. But if in 80 years’ time, somebody in this country bases their vote in a general election on the fact that they (dis)agree with the content of the Lisbon Treaty, then that person will deservedly earn the title of ‘Idiot’.

DoireNod

djpbarry wrote: »

Of course. But if in 80 years’ time, somebody in this country bases their vote in a general election on the fact that they (dis)agree with the content of the Lisbon Treaty, then that person will deservedly earn the title of ‘Idiot’.

Fair enough, but the Lisbon Treaty and Irish independence is slightly different. I mean, the way it is currently and looking at history, people in the North can't help be feel aggrieved at the fact they were 'sold out' or whatever. It doesn't help that nearly all consequent governments since 1921 have effectively abandoned the independence issue.

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

It doesn't help that nearly all consequent governments since 1921 have effectively abandoned the independence issue.

What ?????

The current government (for all its flaws) managed to give the people of the north "the right to self-determination".

If that's abandoning, I'm off looking for another word that describes what they've done to the rest of us.......

turgon

DoireNod wrote: »

Just because they weren't around when it came into effect, doesn't mean they aren't affected by it.

No doubt. However saying "we" "abandoned" "them" is being fallacious. I never voted for partition. Although saying that were I given the choice I would have voted for it.

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What ?????

The current government (for all its flaws) managed to give the people of the north "the right to self-determination".

If that's abandoning, I'm off looking for another word that describes what they've done to the rest of us.......

When was that right given? 1999? Almost a century after partition? At any rate, the seemingly noble act of giving the Irish people of the North the 'right to self-determination' is a mere token gesture and it was done under duress, rather than as an active and positive pursuit by the Irish Government. Can I remind you of the amendment of articles two and three of the constitution, which effectively gave up the Irish Government's rightful(IMO) assertion to Irish soil?

By the way, I'm curious - do you think all those Irish people from the North, who died before the Belfast Agreement, not really Irish then?

turgon wrote: »

No doubt. However saying "we" "abandoned" "them" is being fallacious. I never voted for partition. Although saying that were I given the choice I would have voted for it.

It's 'fallacious' to a degree, but not completely unfounded. Out of interest, why would you have voted for partition?

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

At any rate, the seemingly noble act of giving the Irish people of the North the 'right to self-determination' is a mere token gesture and it was done under duress.....

You left out the "(IMO)" on that part.... :rolleyes:

DoireNod wrote: »

Can I remind you of the amendment of articles two and three of the constitution, which effectively gave up the Irish Government's rightful(IMO) assertion to Irish soil?

You don't need to. I voted that way. And so for you to suggest that I voted lightly and "under duress" is extremely insulting.

It's MY vote, not yours. You have no right to dictate how I use it, and you definitely don't have to remind me.

DoireNod wrote: »

By the way, I'm curious - do you think all those Irish people from the North, who died before the Belfast Agreement, not really Irish then?

Muddying the waters, I see. No, I don't. Just the same as I view Irish people living elsewhere in the world, so quit the crap, please, and quit trying to imply that my views are somehow more "objectionable" than you already seem to think that they are - it's tiring and irritating and will make me stop contributing.

DoireNod wrote: »

Out of interest, why would you have voted for partition?

I can't speak for turgon, but I can say that when people were offered the GFA in order to stop the murder and violence, they voted to stop the murder and violence.

And they could easily have voted the other way for the same reason.

A fellow Irish person living over a border is a lot more acceptable to me than a dead one buried on the same soil.

Mind you, you could replace the word Irish with "innocent", and I'd say the same.

So after all the extremists started calling the shots, I would have voted for ANYTHING that would have stopped that and create the first steps for a normal, democratic society.

Ironically, if the terrorists hadn't been blowing up innocent people, then I wouldn't have had to vote to relinquish Articles 2 & 3.....I guess that means the reign of terror backfired.

Now we move FORWARD.....

turgon

DoireNod wrote: »

It's 'fallacious' to a degree, but not completely unfounded. Out of interest, why would you have voted for partition?

By voting for partition, I meant I would have voted Yes to the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921. As would have any pragmatist. The idealists voted No.

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You don't need to. I voted that way. And so for you to suggest that I voted lightly and "under duress" is extremely insulting.

It's MY vote, not yours. You have no right to dictate how I use it, and you definitely don't have to remind me.

Since you're misunderstanding me, I'll clarify. By under duress, I meant that the Irish Government and the British Government were effectively forced to the table. I wouldn't tell you how to vote, but I think that giving up the right to Irish land, almost a century after the Declaration of Independence and the introduction of the constitution is a bit of a joke. Although, I suppose it the Irish government had already abandoned that right, just unofficially.

Muddying the waters, I see. No, I don't. Just the same as I view Irish people living elsewhere in the world, so quit the crap, please, and quit trying to imply that my views are somehow more "objectionable" than you already seem to think that they are - it's tiring and irritating and will make me stop contributing.

Simple question. I implied nothing and I wouldn't say it's muddying the waters. If you find it irritating that I can ask a reasonable question, that's your problem. I don't brand your discussion as 'crap', so I find it unfortunate that you feel the need to candidly disregard my questions.

I can't speak for turgon, but I can say that when people were offered the GFA in order to stop the murder and violence, they voted to stop the murder and violence.

I do understand that, but turgon was speaking about 1921, I believe.

So after all the extremists started calling the shots, I would have voted for ANYTHING that would have stopped that and create the first steps for a normal, democratic society.

We could get philosophical here. Who's to say that a democratic society is 'normal' or even that it's right or the best form of government? We'll leave that to another day in another thread though

Ironically, if the terrorists hadn't been blowing up innocent people, then I wouldn't have had to vote to relinquish Articles 2 & 3.....I guess that means the reign of terror backfired.

If 'terrorists' hadn't blown up 'innocent' people in the early 20th century, you wouldn't have an 'independent' Irish state either, but fair enough, I see where you're coming from. By the way, what's with the 'reign of terror' rhetoric?

Now we move FORWARD.....

How do you propose that we move forward?

turgon wrote: »

By voting for partition, I meant I would have voted Yes to the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921. As would have any pragmatist. The idealists voted No.

I see. I'm torn on the subject to be completely honest!

turgon

DoireNod wrote: »

I see. I'm torn on the subject to be completely honest!

Even though this isn't history, I believe voting yes was the only way. It was an ok solution and the alternative was another war. I rank war as a worse thing than partition.

weepee

turgon wrote: »

The Treaty was 88 years ago, I would hazard a guess that 98% of the nationalist you talk about weren't around then to be abandoned. But I suppose their position depends on them clinging to the past as if it were the present.

Yeah, your more than likely correct. No point in allowing those northerners to keep dragging up the unification issue-that just holds the rest of us back from making a living in peace.

Red Sleeping Beauty

weepee wrote: »

What is it the Sinn Fein stands for then ?

I think they are running two agenda's.

One North.

One South.

Tho in the North, there is very little alternative to vote for, with an All Ireland agenda,
so they're pretty much secure on they're vote.

That's the thing, they're still more or less seen as a Northern Ireland party. They've established a base gaining votes in some disenchanted working class areas " down south". The local elections results seem to suggest their "southern" party's in trouble with their ideology up for grabs.

weepee

Alan Rouge wrote: »

That's the thing, they're still more or less seen as a Northern Ireland party. They've established a base gaining votes in some disenchanted working class areas " down south". The local elections results seem to suggest their "southern" party's in trouble with their ideology up for grabs.

Yeah, Id go along with that. In the world of 'real' politics, they were clearly out of they're depth, when up against FF and FG. Tho this is
understandable, as the big two have an 80 years jump on them. So
whether or not they're recent disappointments 'down south' are a set back or not is somewhat questionable.

SF should concentrate on local council gains, and do they're homework from the start line, then go for getting a couple of TDs into office.

Especially in such dire times, either that or come up with a master plan for pulling the nation away from financial ruin and go to the country.

djpbarry

weepee wrote: »

Yeah, Id go along with that. In the world of 'real' politics, they were clearly out of they're depth, when up against FF and FG. Tho this is understandable, as the big two have an 80 years jump on them.

How so?

Hagar

Does everyone who is not of a Republican / Nationalist leaning honestly believe that all Republican and Nationalists agree with the shooting of Gardaí? I've news for you they don't. Nobody pulled that trigger in my name. Why exactly the man was shot I don't know, nobody does. Most abhor the incident but it can't be undone.

There is a high probability that the IRA(pick a flavour) simply had to support the shooters in much the same way that the BA support those who fnck up while in uniform. The only difference is the the BA is aligned with those who run the justice system so their immunity is assured.

These men have served their time, their debt to society is paid. They could have been out 11 years ago under the GFA but they weren't for some reason I can't fathom. Now unless you all want to sentence them again for the same crime why don't you let them get on with their lives, nothing you can do to these men will bring Garda mcCabe back. We've seen justice done in the courts, is it justice you people want or vengence?

oscarBravo

Hagar wrote: »

Does everyone who is not of a Republican / Nationalist leaning honestly believe that all Republican and Nationalists agree with the shooting of Gardaí? I've news for you they don't. Nobody pulled that trigger in my name. Why exactly the man was shot I don't know, nobody does. Most abhor the incident but it can't be undone.

Maybe you've missed the point, Hagar, but the story is not the release of the killers from prison so much as the fact that an elected representative met them at the door.

Nobody pulled that trigger in your name - sure. Certainly not in mine. But it seems Martin Ferris feels it was pulled, to some extent, in his name.

These men have served their time, their debt to society is paid. They could have been out 11 years ago under the GFA but they weren't for some reason I can't fathom. Now unless you all want to sentence them again for the same crime why don't you let them get on with their lives, nothing you can do to these men will bring Garda mcCabe back. We've seen justice done in the courts, is it justice you people want or vengence?

It's a matter of some debate whether justice was done. Ten years in minimum security for cold-bloodedly machine-gunning a police officer in the back?

Vengeance would be nice, but I'd settle for justice.

djpbarry

Hagar wrote: »

Does everyone who is not of a Republican / Nationalist leaning honestly believe that all Republican and Nationalists agree with the shooting of Gardaí?

Of course not. But Sinn Féin appear to be condoning the crime.

Hagar wrote: »

There is a high probability that the IRA(pick a flavour) simply had to support the shooters in much the same way that the BA support those who fnck up while in uniform.

I think we can safely say that if a BA staff member shot a passenger, they would be condemned by their fellow BA employees for their actions.

Hagar wrote: »

They could have been out 11 years ago under the GFA but they weren't for some reason I can't fathom.

You see, it’s statements like this that make me question whether the Republican condemnation of Jerry McCabe’s murder is all that sincere.

Hagar

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe you've missed the point, Hagar, but the story is not the release of the killers from prison so much as the fact that an elected representative met them at the door.

Nobody pulled that trigger in your name - sure. Certainly not in mine. But it seems Martin Ferris feels it was pulled, to some extent, in his name. It's a matter of some debate whether justice was done. Ten years in minimum security for cold-bloodedly machine-gunning a police officer in the back?

Vengeance would be nice, but I'd settle for justice.

It was dumb IMHO to meet them coming out, but it must be said the convicted have paid the price society demanded of them so didn't they get justice as laid down by the law of the land? Or do you want more?

djpbarry wrote: »

Of course not. But Sinn Féin appear to be condoning the crime.

I don't think so, I think it's loyalty to volunteers who fought in the armed struggle.

djpbarry wrote: »

I think we can safely say that if a BA staff member shot a passenger, they would be condemned by their fellow BA employees for their actions.

Britisah Airways, could be worse, could have been Ryanair.:) But joking aside it was a valid point.

djpbarry wrote: »

You see, it’s statements like this that make me question whether the Republican condemnation of Jerry McCabe’s murder is all that sincere.

I'm making the point that a greater value seems to be placed on the life of a Garda than on the life of an RUC man. People who killed RUC men were freed under the GFA but not these men who killed a Garda. Can no one else see something odd with that?

weepee

djpbarry wrote: »

How so?

The electorate in the Republic is no different from the electorate in the North really.

They vote on tribal lines. I vote for xx, my father voted for xx, and so on.

With a few exceptions, this has allowed the two main parties to continuously govern since the formation of the state practically.

Sinn Fein on the other hand has not been involved in finance management on a national scale, and where out of they're depth during campaigning, that was clearly seen when Gerry Adams was on a discussion show [cant remember which one], and looked a bit lost,to be honest.

The big two however, fear a Sinn Fein election block developing, which would infringe into their overall vote, and eventually allow SF to achieve the balance of power.

There are set backs to this however.

SF need to come up with a sensible recovery plan, which they can sell to the people, and incidents like the release of the IRA prisoners during the week, which SF make no apologies for.

Ive never known why Garda McCabe was gunned down, and never will.
All right thinking people, Republican or other, condemned it.

Can'tseeme

turgon wrote: »

By voting for partition, I meant I would have voted Yes to the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921. As would have any pragmatist. The idealists voted No.

Therefore creating a sectarian state on this island. Which caused years of sectarianism, prejudice and discrimination. A Protestant ruling party with it's own Police force that caused years of misery and hardship on the nationalist and catholic population that drove on a bloody 30 year war from the end of the 1960's. Splitting Irish people in so many different ways, fighting among themselves like we are all doing now. Upsetting this island for generations from functioning to it's full potential.

The border has done wonders hasn't it.

turgon

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Therefore creating a sectarian state on this island.

Did it ever occur to you that if the Island was united there is every chance the exact same thing would have happened - except just the other way around? Before the war there were indiscriminate killings of protestants - would this have stopped just because of unification? Would the presence of the North have stopped Dev putting a special mention of the Catholic church in the constitution??

Perhaps if you applied your set of values equally across all situations you might come to a different conclusion. All I ask for is consistency, which appears to be extremely hard to come by amongst hard liners of any side in any conflict.

Liam Byrne

turgon wrote: »

Perhaps if you applied your set of values equally across all situations you might come to a different conclusion. All I ask for is consistency, which appears to be extremely hard to come by amongst hard liners of any side in any conflict.

I reckon you're wasting your time with that one, turgon......I've REPEATEDLY said that anyone who might do this would at least gain my respect and the right to be heard, even if I disagreed with their mindset and their logic.

But it seems to be ingrained; scream blue murder, collusion, victimisation and a need for justice when the "victim" is one of "their own" but shut up shop and trot out every excuse and caveat and historical reference possible when it's the "opposing side" (even if the "one of their own" has committed separate, unrelated crimes and atrocities).

At this stage I - like you - would accept just some basic consistency.

Ferris meeting McCabe's killers = "understandable"; "what's the fuss"; "political football", etc, "acting on his own beliefs"

Murder on Bloody Sunday : collusion, policy, and don't even SUGGEST that "acting on his own beliefs" might apply

Hell, I've even been told elsewhere on boards "the murder of a Garda on a whim" is less objectionable than capital punishment for a definite crime; and yet the same person would complain about shooting people on Bloody Sunday, or internment without trial on a whim. Forget the fact that the Garda was guilty of nothing and the shooter had no right to even own or run around with a gun. Kill when someone's proven guilty after a trial is worse than killing indiscriminately for your own agenda ???? Go figure!

In my view, they're ALL wrong; I'd complain about ALL of them - but that's because, like you, I can see when things are wrong regardless of who does them; maybe even "because of", as I'd be more shocked - and let down - if someone I knew or respected committed a crime than some stranger.

At this stage I'd be relatively happy if they even viewed NONE of them as wrong, as long as they treated like with like.

And as for what would be said if a DUP guy welcoming a former Loyalist terrorist who post-ceasefire turned to crime ? Well, just hazard a guess!

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ferris meeting McCabe's killers = "understandable"; "what's the fuss"; "political football", etc, "acting on his own beliefs"

Murder on Bloody Sunday : collusion, policy, and don't even SUGGEST that "acting on his own beliefs" might apply

Somehow I don't think Ferris' meeting of two men as they leave prison is the same as Bloody Sunday.

But maybe I'm just inconsistent. :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

Somehow I don't think Ferris' meeting of two men as they leave prison is the same as Bloody Sunday.

But maybe I'm just inconsistent. :rolleyes:

You know WELL that I was referring to the "acting on individual beliefs" aspect - I even said so. :rolleyes: TWICE.

If we're to believe Ferris was, then maybe we should believe that the shooter that day was.

Maybe both were. Maybe neither were. I don't know.

But I'd give kudos to anyone who recognised the POSSIBILITY that THAT ASPECT of both were EQUIVALENT.

Can'tseeme

turgon wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that if the Island was united there is every chance the exact same thing would have happened - except just the other way around? Before the war there were indiscriminate killings of protestants - would this have stopped just because of unification? Would the presence of the North have stopped Dev putting a special mention of the Catholic church in the constitution??

Perhaps if you applied your set of values equally across all situations you might come to a different conclusion. All I ask for is consistency, which appears to be extremely hard to come by amongst hard liners of any side in any conflict.

Completely disagree with that and I'm no hard liner. You simply cannot compare the Irish state to the Protestant state that were setup. Regarding intolerance and discrimination.

I've never said unification would have bring utopia and there has unfortunately been religious friction in Ireland. But I believe the Irish constitution forbids any discrimination on any grounds. It also upholds the rights of all the people of the republic. Douglas Hyde (church of ireland) 1st President of Ireland I'd remind you.

That special mention from Dev was as detrimental to Irish catholics as anyone else, if not more imo.

Irish republicanism is never about sectarianism. It's has always been about uniting orange and green, not dividing it.

Liam Byrne

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Irish republicanism is never about sectarianism. It's has always been about uniting orange and green, not dividing it.

Almost spewed out my coffee until I spotted the giveaway lowercase "r".

Irish "Republicanism", on the other hand, with its tactics and apologists and excuses and caveats and double-standards, has disgusted even people like myself who should - in theory - side slightly with it, so I can't even begin to imagine what it has done to people who would have been biased against it from day one!

Hagar

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Almost spewed out my coffee until I spotted the giveaway lowercase "r".

I'm so glad that didn't happen. You next post would have been "IRA triggers coffee explosion damaging innocent man's keyboard."

turgon

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Completely disagree with that and I'm no hard liner. You simply cannot compare the Irish state to the Protestant state that were setup.

Of course you cant. Because the Irish state never exercised control over such a sizable population of unionists that they would amount to a large grouping. The Troubles grew out of a civil rights movement. Who is saying that the Unionists would not have started some such movement were they to be under Irish authority?

Can'tseeme

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Almost spewed out my coffee until I spotted the giveaway lowercase "r".

Irish "Republicanism", on the other hand, with its tactics and apologists and excuses and caveats and double-standards, has disgusted even people like myself who should - in theory - side slightly with it, so I can't even begin to imagine what it has done to people who would have been biased against it from day one!

I seen Liam (many times) you are entirely against the Provisional Republican movement which is fair enough. I was talking about the boarder Republican ideology.

Hagar

turgon wrote: »

The Troubles grew out of a civil rights movement.

That must be the greatest understatement/hit-the-bar-but-didn't-go-in statement I've ever seen in this forum.

Q. What did the civil rights movement grow out of?
A. Sectarian oppression.

There would have been no Troubles had the minority not been treated like the negroes in apartheid S.Africa