Sinn Fein

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/Xml/30/DAL20090527.PDF Deputy Chris Andrews.

If you are going to claim the two incidents are unrelated then this is turning into a farce. Her campaign against SF in the area is widely known. The thugs thought responsible for the above acts are also known to have SF connections.

People with SF connections =/= representative of SF/Party policy

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

People with SF connections =/= representative of SF/Party policy

Really depends on what part those "connections" played in the incidents. If they were targetting random cars it would be fair to distance the two.


Edit:/ Added to a lot of other 'incidents' and that is why SF is unpopular with me.

lugha

gleep wrote: »

Would the Gerry Adams/ Martin McGuinness bashers on here consider Nelson Mandela a terrorist who has no place in politics and should not be voted for?

The difference between Mandela and the IRA is that Mandela can claim to have the support of the people he purported to represent. Such support is not sufficient to justify violence, but it is most certainly necessary. Physical force republicans claimed (claim?) to be the legitimate government and army of Ireland, despite them not having the support of the people of Ireland, and they demonstrably, did not. They had minority support in the minority community in the smaller state on the island of Ireland.

But this is all in the past, or so their apologists tell us. However, I am not aware of any republican ever conceding that there was anything amiss with this perversion of democracy that they embraced in in the past. Their mantra seems to be that this was right for those times just as democratic engagement is right for the current times.

But if they don’t accept or see anything wrong with wilfully disregarding the wishes of the people in the past then how can anybody be fully convinced that they are democrats?

To return to the OP’s question as to why Sinn Fein are not more popular. Well, what I just said. But also, I think the whole united Ireland thing is not really a priority for folk in the South (I think Toireasa Ferris has suggested as much), especially now that they’ve all calmed down a bit up there. It’s little more than a vanity project now.

sparkling sea

During the last election, when asked on Today FM by Matt Cooper, Gerry Adams the leader of SF did not know among other things, the minimum wage in the Republic of Ireland. On another show he did not know the average industrial wage in the R of I.

He did however know what both of these were in Northern Ireland in Sterling and rightly so - as he is the leader of what is realistically an Northern Irish party and not a Republic of Ireland party - thats why I would never consider voting for SF -I don't want to vote for a party from another country.

I don't think the Mary Mcaleese should be president as she isn't Irish either although I think she does a really good job.

Its just a pity an Irish person couldn't have got the job

Pot Noodle =

I think with the shenanigans of FG i have turned to SF now and yes they help the little people and not the fat cats

Liam Byrne

Pot wrote:

I think with the shenanigans of FG i have turned to SF now and yes they help the little people and not the fat cats

Depends on which "little people".

sparkling sea

Pot wrote:

I think with the shenanigans of FG i have turned to SF now and yes they help the little people and not the fat cats

Wasn't it just a leadership challenge and part of the run of the mill event in any politcal party.

As for SF helping "the little people" - they mustn't help the vast majority of little people because the vast majority don't vote for them, perhaps its just a select few?

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

The difference between Mandela and the IRA is that Mandela can claim to have the support of the people he purported to represent. Such support is not sufficient to justify violence, but it is most certainly necessary. Physical force republicans claimed (claim?) to be the legitimate government and army of Ireland, despite them not having the support of the people of Ireland, and they demonstrably, did not. They had minority support in the minority community in the smaller state on the island of Ireland.

You've repeated this a billion times in every thread related to Sinn Féin. It's getting old.

Mandela didn't have the total support of people he claimed to represent. Infact, many revolutionaries do not. One could even claim that the Easter Rising did not have majority support. Does that mean that it wasn't warranted? Absolutely not. The north was under British rule, and under British rule - the state was gerrymandered, civilians were murdered by troops sent to protect them, the state colluded in the murder of civilians.

Every single attack on the British military was justified. So you can continue to mosey on about semantics, but it's completely irrelevant in the larger picture. British rule only served one community - the other rebelled against it and justifiably so.

It's well and good to say that the IRA didn't have majority support, when the majority lived in the south - and did not have to live under British rule and the conditions that came with them.

lugha wrote: »

But this is all in the past, or so their apologists tell us. However, I am not aware of any republican ever conceding that there was anything amiss with this perversion of democracy that they embraced in in the past. Their mantra seems to be that this was right for those times just as democratic engagement is right for the current times.

There was absolutely nothing undemocratic about resistance to British rule. The partition of Ireland itself was undemocratic, and as such - any resistance that Britain met was just.

Liam Byrne

dlofnep wrote: »

Every single attack on the British military was justified.

This is where I can - uncomfortably as a pacifist - agree to a point.

But I draw the line as soon as innocent people were maimed and murdered by the IRA.

So from a position of uncomfortable, tentative support, they lost mine completely.

Battered wife maims husband : fair enough - he asked for it
Battered wife maims husband's cousins or parents or neighbour : face the consequences love, you did wrong
Battered wife murders a Garda while robbing cash : lock up and throw away the key; completely unrelated to the original justifiable scenario

dlofnep

We don't disagree on any of the above points Liam.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

You've repeated this a billion times in every thread related to Sinn Féin. It's getting old.

Getting old but not getting refuted. When it is, I’ll move on.

dlofnep wrote: »

Mandela didn't have the total support of people he claimed to represent.

Total support is not necessary. Majority support is.

dlofnep wrote: »

Infact, many revolutionaries do not. One could even claim that the Easter Rising did not have majority support. Does that mean that it wasn't warranted?

One could. And one does. The Easter rising was not justified.
At a certain level, democracy is a very simple concept. It you purport to represent a people, you must have their support. You seem to be intent on confirming my suspicions about Sinn Fein’s commitment to democracy.

dlofnep wrote: »

The north was under British rule, and under British rule - the state was gerrymandered, civilians were murdered by troops sent to protect them, the state colluded in the murder of civilians.

And you accuse me of repetition! So the IRA were engaged in a legitimate war but the Crown forces were expected to abide by the laws of civil society and not form military alliances with allies.

dlofnep wrote: »

It's well and good to say that the IRA didn't have majority support, when the majority lived in the south - and did not have to live under British rule and the conditions that came with them.

The IRA did not have majority support in the North either. Or even amongst the nationalists in the North. And if they could not persuade those of us in the South to support them then they had no business claiming to represent us.
Again you reinforce my suspicions about Sinn Fein’s very curious take on democracy.

You could reassure me if you could affirm that if it were to become evident that the GFA will not deliver a united Ireland that republicans will accept that and not return to violence.

rugbyman

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Show me proof that Adams was a leader of the PIRA.

I am sue that Bantam can answer for himself, but how on earth could he show you proof. Do you believe that Bantam is wrong and that Adams was not a leader of the IRA.

I like your name, looka a wee bit out of place on some issues though...

Rugbyman

Wolfe Tone

rugbyman wrote: »

I am sue that Bantam can answer for himself, but how on earth could he show you proof. Do you believe that Bantam is wrong and that Adams was not a leader of the IRA.

I like your name, looka a wee bit out of place on some issues though...

Rugbyman

Well Adams has always denied it. There is very little reason for him to do so, so I am inclined to believe him. So it is very libelous t accuse him of something like that when there is no proof.

And about my name, I decided to try it for a laugh, didn't think it would be available. Am stuck with it now!

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

You've repeated this a billion times in every thread related to Sinn Féin. It's getting old.

Mandela didn't have the total support of people he claimed to represent. Infact, many revolutionaries do not. One could even claim that the Easter Rising did not have majority support. Does that mean that it wasn't warranted? Absolutely not. The north was under British rule, and under British rule - the state was gerrymandered, civilians were murdered by troops sent to protect them, the state colluded in the murder of civilians.

Every single attack on the British military was justified. So you can continue to mosey on about semantics, but it's completely irrelevant in the larger picture. British rule only served one community - the other rebelled against it and justifiably so.

It's well and good to say that the IRA didn't have majority support, when the majority lived in the south - and did not have to live under British rule and the conditions that came with them.

There was absolutely nothing undemocratic about resistance to British rule. The partition of Ireland itself was undemocratic, and as such - any resistance that Britain met was just.

Even band members and ones out of uniform waiting for a train?

Does that also mean that every member of the IRA was a bonafide target?

Nehaxak

The IRA is still a proscribed and illegal organisation to be a member of, so even if any member of SF were also a member in the past of the IRA - they could and can be still prosecuted/jailed for admitting same.
So it is an ultimately unanswerable question to ask of any SF member, but people asking it would already know that anyway...

My question then would be why ? Why ask that question when you know it cannot be answered truthfully without incriminating the person being asked, if indeed they are or were ever a member of the IRA ?

Or PIRA even, just to clarify.

I find it very childish that the same question is brought up over and over again. You've an open forum here to ask any question, to question policy and politics yet some persist in following lines of questioning of what is or was only tantamount to loyalist rhetoric propaganda.

Grow up and get over your own hatred, nobody cares for it anymore. Ask proper questions and engage in meaningful debate but leave the loyalist rhetoric out of it as I, as a general reader of this forum am just bloody tired of the same old people with the same old crap ruining any and every thread related to anything SF.

Pot Noodle =

Nah going to vote the other way now no more Quiffs FG has shown its true colours

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Even band members and ones out of uniform waiting for a train?

No, non-combative soldiers were not justified targets in my opinion. Speaking of bands.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Does that also mean that every member of the IRA was a bonafide target?

No. Britain was the oppressor. The IRA was fighting oppression. British soldiers had no right to be there in the first place, as the partition of Ireland was not democratically achieved. Britain however did have a shoot to kill policy however, so it's moot either way.

Dr. Baltar

dlofnep wrote: »

No. Britain was the oppressor. The IRA was fighting oppression. British soldiers had no right to be there in the first place, as the partition of Ireland was not democratically achieved. Britain however did have a shoot to kill policy however, so it's moot either way.

And let us assume for a moment that you are the person responsible for Northern Ireland back then and you're watching your people being blown to bits by the IRA. Are you seriously saying you wouldn't have deployed soldiers on the streets to protect your citizens?

Regardless of whether you accept the validity of Northern Ireland (democratically the people of this Island have said that it is a legitimate state) you cannot deny that the IRA attacked innocent civilians and it was necessary for soldiers to be deployed.

Wolfe Tone

Personally I think that attacks on the BA were justified. Not attacks on innocent civilians.

dlofnep

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

And let us assume for a moment that you are the person responsible for Northern Ireland back then and you're watching your people being blown to bits by the IRA. Are you seriously saying you wouldn't have deployed soldiers on the streets to protect your citizens?

Regardless of whether you accept the validity of Northern Ireland (democratically the people of this Island have said that it is a legitimate state) you cannot deny that the IRA attacked innocent civilians and it was necessary for soldiers to be deployed.

The IRA's mere existence is a result of British rule in Ireland. I don't think I've denied anywhere that the loss of innocent life is on the hands of the IRA.

And the British Army came, not because of the IRA - but infact to protect the nationalist community from loyalist attacks. And we all know how that went, don't we?

killbillvol2

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

And let us assume for a moment that you are the person responsible for Northern Ireland back then and you're watching your people being blown to bits by the IRA. Are you seriously saying you wouldn't have deployed soldiers on the streets to protect your citizens?

Regardless of whether you accept the validity of Northern Ireland (democratically the people of this Island have said that it is a legitimate state) you cannot deny that the IRA attacked innocent civilians and it was necessary for soldiers to be deployed.

Soldiers were deployed to protect the nationalist community. You really shouldn't be on this thread if you think the army arrived in response to the IRA.

As regards SF, they puzzle me. There are some really outstanding local representatives whose work on the ground in disadvantaged communities is exemplary. On the other hand they don't seem able to put together a coherent set of policies to appeal to a broader section of society.

There's a large number of people who will never vote SF because of relatively recent history but there must be a growing number of voters disillusioned with the mainstream parties who seek an alternative and are prepared to overlook SF's connections to the PIRA and give them credit for their role in the peace process. I find it astonishing that the brains behind the party have failed so abysmally to put a palatable manifesto together with a broader appeal.

FTA69

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

And let us assume for a moment that you are the person responsible for Northern Ireland back then and you're watching your people being blown to bits by the IRA. Are you seriously saying you wouldn't have deployed soldiers on the streets to protect your citizens?

Regardless of whether you accept the validity of Northern Ireland (democratically the people of this Island have said that it is a legitimate state) you cannot deny that the IRA attacked innocent civilians and it was necessary for soldiers to be deployed.

Soldiers were deployed in 1969, years before the IRA started an offensive campaign. Initially they were deployed "in aid of the civil power", basically in order to shore up the RUC and Stormont who were attempting to suppress Nationalists during the trouble that arose during the Civil Rights movement.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

Soldiers were deployed in 1969.....in order to shore up the RUC and Stormont who were attempting to suppress Nationalists

killbillvol2 wrote: »

Soldiers were deployed to protect the nationalist community.

Which is it, guys ?

Wolfe Tone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Which is it, guys ?

They were deployed to protect nationalists I believe. Hence their warm welcome.

To protect catholics in Derry and Belfast from loyalist attacks. That soon changed however.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Which is it, guys ?

What's the contradiction there?

They were sent over there to protect nationalists. They were initially welcomed because nationalists because they did not trust RUC/B-Specials.

Though I'm not denying they stayed due to the IRA campaign. I reckon they should have been replaced with a UN peacekeeping force for that though. And its what I reckon should happen if the PSNI can't handle the dissidents in the future.

Nodin

As the PSNI is largely purged of the sectarian elements in Special Branch and unrepresentative membership that undermined the RUC, that should not be nessecary.

killbillvol2

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

They were deployed to protect nationalists I believe. Hence their warm welcome.

To protect catholics in Derry and Belfast from loyalist attacks. That soon changed however.

+1

There's a lot of footage of women in nationalist areas embracing the soldiers when they arrived. Nationalists initially thought the army would protect them. The honeymoon period was very short.

LordSutch

dlofnep wrote: »

No. Britain was the oppressor. The IRA was fighting oppression. British soldiers had no right to be there in the first place, as the partition of Ireland was not democratically achieved. Britain however did have a shoot to kill policy however, so it's moot either way.

No. The IRA was the aggressor. The Army was fighting Terrorism. the IRA terrorists had no right to be there in the first place, as the partition of Ireland was democratically achieved, hence the Provo's had no mandate. Britain however did not have a shoot to kill policy.

If you are a Sinn Fein supporter then you must be aware of their past :cool:

dlofnep

Camelot wrote: »

No. The IRA was the aggressor. The Army was fighting Terrorism.

The army was sent to protect nationalists against Loyalist attacks. The IRA was not the aggressor. Infact, things had been relatively quiet since the border campaign in the 50's.

Camelot wrote: »

the IRA terrorists had no right to be there in the first place, as the partition of Ireland was democratically achieved,

The partition of Ireland was not democratically achieved. The Anglo-Irish treaty was signed under duress, and as such - was not democratic. The 1918 elections prior to partition oversaw 5 of the 9 counties of Ulster with a nationalist majority, including Derry City, South Down, Falls in Belfast and South Armagh in the other 4 counties.

There was nothing democratic about the partition of Ireland. The wishes of a minority dictated the wishes of the majority.

Camelot wrote: »

Britain however did not have a shoot to kill policy.

Yes it did.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

The partition of Ireland was not democratically achieved. The Anglo-Irish treaty was signed under duress, and as such - was not democratic.

I wonder will any unionists with a taste for irony borrow that little nugget, if and when the Good Friday Agreement leads to a united Ireland? I.e. Trimble and the crew only negotiated the agreement under the threat of a renewed IRA campaign of violence if they didn’t . That isn’t true of course, but it might read as a persuasive enough argument in a few decades time.