Dissident republicans and Sinn Fein

mega man

I am curious...what position do dissident republicans put sinn fein in?
Have Unionists any excuse to pull out of power sharing with sinn fein because of the actions of dissident republicans?

Liam Byrne

Hard to tell......if SF disassociated themselves from them, then fair enough, but when key members go out of their way to be associated with them, then it placates the extremists but disgusts the general public.

mega man

well sinn fein has already brought an end to the provisionals. they hardly have connections with dissidents? that would be dangerous for the peace process

gurramok

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Hard to tell......if SF disassociated themselves from them, then fair enough, but when key members go out of their way to be associated with them, then it placates the extremists but disgusts the general public.

Proof?

McGuinness labelled the dissidents as traitors and the dissidents are thinking vice versa, no love lost there.

thelastditch

mega man wrote: »

I am curious...what position do dissident republicans put sinn fein in?
Have Unionists any excuse to pull out of power sharing with sinn fein because of the actions of dissident republicans?

Either Unionists or Nationalists can presumably pull down power sharing anytime they like. Obviously the greater IRA 'dissident' activity the greater pressure would be put on Unionists by their own support base to collapse the assembly. You see, many rank and file Unionists make no distinction between SF and 'dissident' groups. On the flip side, the more aggressive SF are towards 'dissident' activity (by word and deed), the more likely Unionists are to resist grass root pressure.

Joey the lips

Sinn fein dont have any connections with dissidents. its not because they dont want to its because dissidents dont see them as being republician. The stange thing is gerry adams has always welcomed them because afik he realises if pockets like this dont talk it will lead to problems.

The real joke i think is when you see a current member of sinn fein talking to someone from RSF. The reporters sell it as a scandle and a sell out and a turning. But considering there ideology is simular its a bit like a fianna fail member and a fianna gael member talking granted finna gael might hate fianna fail but they still talk.

The true mistake that the dissidents make is that they are alienating themselves from everyone.Repunlicians and unionist. They make the mistake to claim that if you dont support them then your not republician. Will stuff you to sunshine:) They are attempting to alienate sinn fein from its base. Will this happen i doubt it. That is why the dissidents hate sinn fein so much they will never get any further than dissidents once sinn fein still exist in its current format.

Liam Byrne

gurramok wrote: »

Proof?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055641278

If it's against that make-up-your-own-rules "Green Book", then it must qualify as dissident.

mega man

but does each of there causes not benefit one another.

gurramok

Liam Byrne wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055641278

If it's against that make-up-your-own-rules "Green Book", then it must qualify as dissident.

Huh? Explain that one please. We're talking about dissident republican activity up north from the likes of RIRA, CIRA etc.

Joey the lips

Liam Byrne wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055641278

If it's against that make-up-your-own-rules "Green Book", then it must qualify as dissident.

And we off...... Whats this got to do with dissident activity. If you forgive me I am not reading through pages and pages of a stupid thread on matin ferris and his meeting

mega man

I would like to draw your attention to the old republican expression, by ballot box or by gun our day will come. now that sinn fein are indepndent from miliantism what is stopping republicanism from taking this course. this is what stopped sinn fein in the past

Joey the lips

mega man wrote: »

I am curious...what position do dissident republicans put sinn fein in?
Have Unionists any excuse to pull out of power sharing with sinn fein because of the actions of dissident republicans?

mega man wrote: »

I would like to draw your attention to the old republican expression, by ballot box or by gun our day will come. now that sinn fein are indepndent from miliantism what is stopping republicanism from taking this course. this is what stopped sinn fein in the past

You seem to be rambleing a fair bit why dont you bluntly come out with a question rather than skirting. You have now said 2 different things in the one thread.

afik you are taring " a republician" as being something in particualr. May i ask your Modus operandi ans where you are going with this?

I detect the smell of buring in the air!

thelastditch

mega man wrote: »

I would like to draw your attention to the old republican expression, by ballot box or by gun our day will come. now that sinn fein are indepndent from miliantism what is stopping republicanism from taking this course. this is what stopped sinn fein in the past

There's absolutely no way the assembly could survive a sustained and effective 'dissident' campaign. Unionists would pull out under grass roots pressure or be replaced.

mega man

I am just curious where republicanism is going as a whole. both dissident and peace loving

mega man

thelastditch wrote: »

There's absolutely no way the assembly could survive a sustained and effective 'dissident' campaign. Unionists would pull out under grass roots pressure or be replaced.

what gounds would the unionists have on pulling out of government with a party that condemns actions of such groups?

DoireNod

mega man wrote: »

I am curious...what position do dissident republicans put sinn fein in?
Have Unionists any excuse to pull out of power sharing with sinn fein because of the actions of dissident republicans?

In Derry, there have been many attacks on Sinn Féin offices and indeed the houses of Sinn Féin members, allegedly by members of 'dissident' republican groups. In the Bogside, I saw 'SF your the trades' (presumably meaning Sinn Féin you're the traitors) daubed on walls and even when Sinn Féin welcomed the PSNI, there was grafitti saying 'SF/RUC OUT'. I think it's clear that an element within Irish republicanism feels that Sinn Féin has sold out to the British.

I don't think unionists have any excuse to pull out of power sharing with Sinn Féin at all, especially with how Sinn Féin have handled the actions of splinter republican groups. If it was the 32CSM or RSF that unionists were sharing power with, then yes, they could justifiably pull out. In any case, what would be achieved if unionist 'pulled out' of power sharing?

I really hope this doesn't descend into ridiculous debate, with allegations, condemnation and unfounded claims.

Joey the lips

mega man wrote: »

I am curious...what position do dissident republicans put sinn fein in?
Have Unionists any excuse to pull out of power sharing with sinn fein because of the actions of dissident republicans?

mega man wrote: »

I am just curious where republicanism is going as a whole. both dissident and peace loving

again thats not what you said. I seriously suspect you have no interest in political discussion by rather to stirr the usual conflict between those who are republician and those who are not.

There is no discussion as of yet to be had in this thread. But its good to see the usual kicking off straight away, Perhaps "Republicians" will leave this thread and let it die the death it deserves!

thelastditch

mega man wrote: »

what gounds would the unionists have on pulling out of government with a party that condemns actions of such groups?

I don't think they'd need any grounds. But if The UK government asked them why, I assume they'd claim there was no longer grass roots support amongst Unionists for assembly participation. If The UK government didn't believe them (which they would), they'd all resign their seats and put themselves forward again as abstentionist Unionists and prove it. Or something along those lines.

And yes, this does mean that 'dissident' Republicans can potentially destroy power sharing if they became strong enough.

mega man

Joey the lips wrote: »

again thats not what you said. I seriously suspect you have no interest in political discussion by rather to stirr the usual conflict between those who are republician and those who are not.

There is no discussion as of yet to be had in this thread. But its good to see the usual kicking off straight away, Perhaps "Republicians" will leave this thread and let it die the death it deserves!

Rubbish!

Joey the lips

mega man wrote: »

Rubbish!

The thread yes i agree!

mega man

Joey the lips wrote: »

The thread yes i agree!

If you have issues with republicanism take it up somewhere else. This is a a discussion of where republicanism is going as a whole.

dlofnep

SF does not associate with dissident groups, and visa versa. If a group does not support the Good Friday Agreement, then there is no foundation for which they can work on.

It's not a matter of dissident and non-dissident. It's a matter of pro-GFA and anti-GFA. Dissident in itself has no meaning.

Joey the lips

mega man wrote: »

If you have issues with republicanism take it up somewhere else. This is a a discussion of where republicanism is going as a whole.

I have no issues in fact i am the opposite. But as i pointed out you clearly do. Especially in the fact that you dont understand how to seperate a republician and sinn fein. Everyone can be a republician but they dont have to be in sinn fein!

dlofnep wrote: »

SF does not associate with dissident groups, and visa versa. If a group does not support the Good Friday Agreement, then there is no foundation for which they can work on.

It's not a matter of dissident and non-dissident. It's a matter of pro-GFA and anti-GFA. Dissident in itself has no meaning.

He missed this point i think. Or did he!

gurramok

Here is your orginal question:

mega man wrote:

Have Unionists any excuse to pull out of power sharing with sinn fein because of the actions of dissident republicans?

Now, why would the likes of SF who have about 26% of the vote and 61% of the nationalist vote be penalised by a few dissidents who have less than 1% of the vote??

If the dissidents had the same voting power as SF, then we may worry but they do not.

mega man

gurramok wrote: »

Here is your orginal question:


Now, why would the likes of SF who have about 26% of the vote and 61% of the nationalist vote be penalised by a few dissidents who have less than 1% of the vote??

If the dissidents had the same voting power as SF, then we may worry but they do not.

to my knowlege dissidents dont run for parliament

dlofnep

mega man wrote: »

to my knowlege dissidents dont run for parliament

They don't, but they do take votes away from SF - albeit, not a large sum.

mega man

so as long as they remain combatants they wont split the republican vote

dlofnep

mega man wrote: »

so as long as they remain combatants they wont split the republican vote

They are splitting the Republican vote - but the votes for Dissidents are void votes, as they are not used. Dissidents have strongholds with a decent support base but based in concentrated areas, like parts of Derry. But in an overall context, their support base doesn't count for much across the Island, or even in the north. It will be interesting to see the results of the next elections to see if SF continues to rise (which I assume it will).

Liam Byrne

gurramok wrote: »

Huh? Explain that one please. We're talking about dissident republican activity up north from the likes of RIRA, CIRA etc.

There's ABSOLUTELY no mention in the OP's post about "activity up north".

gurramok

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There's ABSOLUTELY no mention in the OP's post about "activity up north".

He did say Unionists and there are no Unionist political representation down 'South'

dlofnep

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There's ABSOLUTELY no mention in the OP's post about "activity up north".

The men who killed McCabe were not dissidents. You should probably educate yourself about the different groups to be honest. The real divide in Republicanism came in 1998, McCabe's killing was in 1996. The GFA is the divide within Republicanism that stpulates dissidents and non-dissidents, and while there have been divides on specific issues - like 1970 and 1986 - the the term dissident is typically only used to describe anti-GFA Republicans.

So you were incorrect with your original post. So just to clarify - SF does not work with dissident republicans, and their ideologies differ to much to work on anything. SF is embedded in the peace process and wants to work on a path of politics, while dissident republicans believe in armed resistance.

Joey the lips

dlofnep wrote: »

The men who killed McCabe were not dissidents. You should probably educate yourself about the different groups to be honest. The real divide in Republicanism came in 1998, McCabe's killing was in 1996. The GFA is the divide within Republicanism that stpulates dissidents and non-dissidents, and while there have been divides on specific issues - like 1970 and 1986 - the the term dissident is typically only used to describe anti-GFA Republicans.

So you were incorrect with your original post. So just to clarify - SF does not work with dissident republicans, and their ideologies differ to much to work on anything. SF is embedded in the peace process and wants to work on a path of politics, while dissident republicans believe in armed resistance.

+1 Thank you.

walrusgumble

gurramok wrote: »

Proof?

McGuinness labelled the dissidents as traitors and the dissidents are thinking vice versa, no love lost there.

i noticed during the local / dail by election / european elections, some sinn fein posters eg mary lou mcdonald grafftied over with the words "sold out".

mitchell mcloughlin's and a couple of other sinn féin member's have had either their homes or constitutency offices attacked.

Liam Byrne

dlofnep wrote: »

The men who killed McCabe were not dissidents. You should probably educate yourself about the different groups to be honest.

Fair enough. I would've thought that a dissident was someone who refused to abide by the rules and decisions of an organisation, and acted off their own bat but obviously not.

As for educating myself......not up to me (apart from taking on board what you've said above). If SF want to clarify the distinction and only do things that are above board and acceptable, then it'll be clear enough in no time.

gurramok wrote: »

He did say Unionists and there are no Unionist political representation down 'South'

You're joking, right ? Firstly (a) there could be (god knows false accusations fly here often enough); secondly (b) when listing atrocities, the border is ignored - why bring it up now and (c) IF an organisation gets involved in dodgy crap abroad, why wouldn't it affect the Unionist view ? If FF started bombing America, would you see people still voting for them ?

dlofnep

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Fair enough. I would've thought that a dissident was someone who refused to abide by the rules and decisions of an organisation, and acted off their own bat but obviously not.

It's not, it's in reference to the GFA only. But I can see why you would think that.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As for educating myself......not up to me

To be honest, it is.. when you accuse members of SF for associating with dissidents.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

(apart from taking on board what you've said above). If SF want to clarify the distinction and only do things that are above board and acceptable, then it'll be clear enough in no time.

Well - The GFA was 11 years ago. It's quite clear that SF does not work with dissident Republicans, and hasn't done. Their ideologies differ way too much for them to agree on anything. SF supported the GFA, they opposed. SF, while understanding that policing in the north was heavily skewed in favour of Unionists - realised that the most productive thing was to engage with policing and change it from the inside. They didn't this knowing that they would lose some support for it, and they did. Members of SF have had their homes attacked since.

The distinction is there - But I think you're just not willing to even look at it. SF have embraced the peace process, and while there have been hiccups - the fact of the matter is SF supports the GFA and work within it for the betterment of Ireland, and the dissidents do not - while believing in armed resistance. This is the distinction.

gurramok

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You're joking, right ? Firstly (a) there could be (god knows false accusations fly here often enough); secondly (b) when listing atrocities, the border is ignored - why bring it up now and (c) IF an organisation gets involved in dodgy crap abroad, why wouldn't it affect the Unionist view ? If FF started bombing America, would you see people still voting for them ?

I don't think you are reading the OP post correctly.

A - there is none in the councils/Dail.
B & C - what are you on about and whats it to do with the topic?

The topic is about dissidents in NI, how hard is that to understand?

Have Unionists any excuse to pull out of power sharing with sinn fein because of the actions of dissident republicans?

You said

There's ABSOLUTELY no mention in the OP's post about "activity up north".

To repeat myself. Unionists are not in powersharing in ROI so it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the topic is about NI

FTA69

Joey the lips wrote: »

The stange thing is gerry adams has always welcomed them because afik he realises if pockets like this dont talk it will lead to problems.

He has in his arse. The Sinn Féin leadership are continually trying to undermine Republicans outside of their sphere of influence such to the point where you had Gerry Kelly lying through his teeth suggesting Éirigi organised the recent riots in Ardoyne.

Liam Byrne

gurramok wrote: »

The topic is about dissidents in NI, how hard is that to understand?

The topic is about how the actions of dissidents might give the Unionists a basis to reconsider.

They don't have to dissent in NI; if the dissidents went to visit Columbia or wherever, then the Unionists would have a case for asking what the F**K was going on.

gurramok wrote: »

B & C - what are you on about and whats it to do with the topic?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

(b) when listing atrocities, the border is ignored - why bring it up now

You made it clear that you'd refer to north of the border; however in other discussions you failed to distinguish between events on the two sides of the border; be consistent, please.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

(c) IF an organisation gets involved in dodgy crap abroad, why wouldn't it affect the Unionist view

Like I said, a group doesn't have to act within the confines of borders in order to impact on your opinion of it. Al Quaida disgusts most people, but they've only acted in the U.S. and in the U.K; would you go into/stay in Government with them ?

gurramok wrote: »

To repeat myself. Unionists are not in powersharing in ROI so it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the topic is about NI

So that'd give the dissidents a carte-blanche to do what they like south of the border, without impacting on people's opinion of them ? And ironically, a border that you previously refused to make distinctions based on ?

The topic is indeed about what the Unionists would DO north of the border because of dissident activities; but those activities don't have to be north of the border for Unionists - and neutrals - to have an opinion of them.

Fact is though, if SF completley stop blurring lines and excusing stuff, and engaging in whataboutery, then they can disown responsibility for the psychos. And to be fair - credit where credit's due - they've definitely improved in that regard.

But they have a way to go to emphasise that they have changed, and that includes getting some of their members to cop themselves on when it comes to their views of criminal activities.

dlofnep

Let's agree to disagree - no matter where in Ireland, they are not associating with dissident Republics.

Joey the lips

mega man wrote: »

If you have issues with republicanism take it up somewhere else. This is a a discussion of where republicanism is going as a whole.

Thanks for proving me right. Hopefully they will lock this thread as well. Why dont you just come out and lay your stall out. A least then we can have a decent discussion about why dissident republicians are behaving like fachists instead of being republician.

mega man

dlofnep wrote: »

It's not, it's in reference to the GFA only. But I can see why you would think that.



To be honest, it is.. when you accuse members of SF for associating with dissidents.



Well - The GFA was 11 years ago. It's quite clear that SF does not work with dissident Republicans, and hasn't done. Their ideologies differ way too much for them to agree on anything. SF supported the GFA, they opposed. SF, while understanding that policing in the north was heavily skewed in favour of Unionists - realised that the most productive thing was to engage with policing and change it from the inside. They didn't this knowing that they would lose some support for it, and they did. Members of SF have had their homes attacked since.

The distinction is there - But I think you're just not willing to even look at it. SF have embraced the peace process, and while there have been hiccups - the fact of the matter is SF supports the GFA and work within it for the betterment of Ireland, and the dissidents do not - while believing in armed resistance. This is the distinction.

So from this thread my understanding is this. Republicanism in Ireland has taken two forms.
Pro-Good Friday Agreement: Sinn Fein, Provisional IRA and Anti-Good Friday Agreement: RIRA, 32CSM, CIRA etc.
Yet both are trying to achieve the same goal yet through different methods?

dlofnep

mega man wrote: »

So from this thread my understanding is this. Republicanism in Ireland has taken two forms.
Pro-Good Friday Agreement: Sinn Fein, Provisional IRA and Anti-Good Friday Agreement: RIRA, 32CSM, CIRA etc.

Yup, that's about the extent of it. The dissidents have minor squabbles about certain issues amongst themselves.

It should be noted - that not all dissidents support armed resistance as a first protocol, they just don't agree with the text of the GFA, on specific issues like giving up territorial rights as a matter of default. So when you hear the term dissident, all it means is that they disagree with the text of the GFA.

I think dissident is a term used to try and jumble a lot of people together, who may have significant differences on certain issues.

mega man

dlofnep wrote: »

Yup, that's about the extent of it. The dissidents have minor squabbles about certain issues amongst themselves.

It should be noted - that not all dissidents support armed resistance as a first protocol, they just don't agree with the text of the GFA, on specific issues like giving up territorial rights as a matter of default. So when you hear the term dissident, all it means is that they disagree with the text of the GFA.

I think dissident is a term used to try and jumble a lot of people together, who may have significant differences on certain issues.

So as the peace rocess gathers
momentum, isn't there a chance that the armed struggle might gather momentum with a new generation?

dlofnep

mega man wrote: »

So as the peace rocess gathers
momentum, isn't there a chance that the armed struggle might gather momentum with a new generation?

It's hard to say - With the likes of the CIRA & RIRA, it's doubtful that they would have anywhere near the support that the PIRA had. I really don't know though. We saw the attacks on those 2 sappers, and that PSNI chap - so they are intent on attacking.

I would hope that more and more people continue to support the peace process. Unless British Troops attack civilians in Ireland, I think that we can work on unity and equality though a political framework. Obviously, not all Republicans will agree with me - but the vast majority of them do.

gurramok

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The topic is about how the actions of dissidents might give the Unionists a basis to reconsider.

They don't have to dissent in NI; if the dissidents went to visit Columbia or wherever, then the Unionists would have a case for asking what the F**K was going on.

You made it clear that you'd refer to north of the border; however in other discussions you failed to distinguish between events on the two sides of the border; be consistent, please.

Like I said, a group doesn't have to act within the confines of borders in order to impact on your opinion of it. Al Quaida disgusts most people, but they've only acted in the U.S. and in the U.K; would you go into/stay in Government with them ?

So that'd give the dissidents a carte-blanche to do what they like south of the border, without impacting on people's opinion of them ? And ironically, a border that you previously refused to make distinctions based on ?

The topic is indeed about what the Unionists would DO north of the border because of dissident activities; but those activities don't have to be north of the border for Unionists - and neutrals - to have an opinion of them.

Fact is though, if SF completley stop blurring lines and excusing stuff, and engaging in whataboutery, then they can disown responsibility for the psychos. And to be fair - credit where credit's due - they've definitely improved in that regard.

But they have a way to go to emphasise that they have changed, and that includes getting some of their members to cop themselves on when it comes to their views of criminal activities.

Why didn't you all say this in the first place instead of referring to dissidents as released Limerick prisoners?!;)

Talk about whataboutery!:D

The topic is about dissidents republican groups, not SF. You can bash SF in another thread if needs be. Yes, dissident activity abroad affects NI, it just hasn't happened yet in many years and the spotlight of their activities have been almost exclusively to NI.

rhyolite

mega man wrote: »

So as the peace rocess gathers
momentum, isn't there a chance that the armed struggle might gather momentum with a new generation?

unlikely. PIRA's campaign - or rather, the political environment within which it was able to generate support or 'blind-eyeness' - was a 'fortunate' mix of pure republican ideology and very large numbers of Nationalists being very unhappy at the way they were treated, and their views ignored by, the various governments involved.

the same pure Republican ideology exists today, yet there is very little support for it within the wider 'Nationalist' public - why?, simply because the catalyst (the treatment of those Nationalists by the state) has gone. the match is still there, but the fuel has gone. all they are left with is a stick that's a bit hot at one end. sure it can burn you, but its not going to set your house on fire.

Liam Byrne

gurramok wrote: »

Why didn't you all say this in the first place instead of referring to dissidents as released Limerick prisoners?!;)

Talk about whataboutery!:D

It's not "whataboutery", and it has been cleared up already.

Not everyone knows what groups "dissident" referred to, y'know :rolleyes:

And when there's people breaking so-called "rules" and doing their own thing regardless of "policy" or whatever, then it's natural to assume that they are at least in some way "dissident".

But like I said, that's been clarified above.

ChocolateSauce

mega man wrote: »

but does each of there causes not benefit one another.

There are many causes I believe in, but no matter what they are I would never accept that they should be furthered by terrorism and murder, especially when a peaceful alternative is available.

FTA69

Joey the lips wrote: »

A least then we can have a decent discussion about why dissident republicians are behaving like fachists instead of being republician.

I don't support the likes of the Real IRA at all, but I find your statement that everyone outside the Sinn Féin bracket is a "fascist" to be ridiculous; especially considering what the Provos got up to over the last 25 years without any sort of mandate whatsoever.

thelastditch

FTA69 wrote: »

I don't support the likes of the Real IRA at all, but I find your statement that everyone outside the Sinn Féin bracket is a "fascist" to be ridiculous; especially considering what the Provos got up to over the last 25 years without any sort of mandate whatsoever.

Yes, it's ridiculous. PIRA had more support than violent 'dissidents' have (today), but their support was never overwhelming. I'd say (at a guess) that PIRA had passive/active support for their campaign (not for every action) amongst 50% of northern working class Catholics and amongst 10% of northern middle class Catholics (some of whom, such as certain lawyers and accountants, were very useful indeed). I'd not put support (passive/active) above 10% in The Republic. Obviously support for PIRA's war aims (a united Ireland - NOT civil rights issues) was higher, both North and South of the border. These figures would be peak support levels, probably occurring only in the seventies and to a lesser extent in the eighties.

SF/IRA were definitely a fascist movement in the sense that they used violence as a means to an end even when the ballot box existed north and south of the border. The way they imposed their will on the northern working class Catholic community also points to this. They also exhibited fascism (or Marxism?) in their approach to politics, in which the ends very much dictated the means - a constant use of half truths, distortions and downright lies. An attachment to 'street' politics and all that entails, as well as a disproportionate appeal to the young point to the same conclusion.

I am yet to be convinced that all of this has changed within SF.

Joey the lips

FTA69 wrote: »

I don't support the likes of the Real IRA at all, but I find your statement that everyone outside the Sinn Féin bracket is a "fascist" to be ridiculous; especially considering what the Provos got up to over the last 25 years without any sort of mandate whatsoever.

If you are going to quote me please quote me correctly! I never said that everyone outside sinn fein is fascist! In fact that is a faschist remark in itself. I could explain why if it helps. That is not correct! I said dissident republicians are fascist. It is widely accepted that dissidents are RIRA and CIRA. Why did I call them faschists becuase its clear that to them you either support the republician cause there way or your not republician.

If they truly allowed you the freedom to choose then they would be socialist!

I can refere you to many sites where it is clear they dont!