Can someone please explain all the inconsistencies and double-standards ?

Liam Byrne

Reading through the threads re McGuinness throws out an astounding amount of double-standards, and maybe someone can shed some light on them.

1. "There was a war on"

This is used when his apologists want to excuse what he stands for.

However, if we apply this, it would then excuse the British from what they did, something the apologists refuse to do.

2. "Who wouldn't have 'fought back' ?"

Fighting "back" involves fighting against those attacking you, not random innocent people who may even have been on your side had you not murdered them.

There's a difference between general fighting and violence, isn't there ? And if there was a war on, see point 1.

3. "The president will represent the whole island"

Actually no. The president is the president of the Republic of Ireland which is the state, and the state is explicitly mentioned in the constitution; the same constitution that we voted to change in order to stop the madness. So the president doesn't represent the whole island, and there is no "new Ireland" as McGuinness spouts.

4. "It's not a state, it's 26 counties"

It is a state, and if you refuse to acknowledge that then you have no cause to run for president. It would be like an atheist running as president of heaven.

5. "But...but....but look at what the Brits did ?"

We know what they did. We've seen what they've since done in Iraq. It's a disgrace. But either

a) there was a war on (again, see point 1) or
b) it's irrelevant in the context of the election because they're not looking for our vote or to have any control over the state (see point 4)

Is there any chance that there are McGuinness supporters could actually have a discussion without throwing the above red herrings and strawmanning into the mix ?

pubview

Methinks you misunderstand the nature of Shinnerism.

They are the Irish Taliban.

Zubeneschamali

Liam Byrne wrote: »

"There was a war on"

If all those criminals were actually Prisoners of War, they'd have been locked up until the "war" ended, not sentenced to 5 years and let out early for good behaviour.

Mr.Micro

Many would be on death row if in the US, not poncing about in suits talking utter BS about war and what not.

maccored

My god, but MMG has surely freaked a lot of you people out. Makes for entertaining reading.

1. "There was a war on"

Indeed there f*cking well was

2. "Who wouldn't have 'fought back' ?"

Certainly not people living south of the border who have the least clue of what it was actually like to live in the north.

3. "The president will represent the whole island"

Actually, the current president does. Its a matter of semantics that the republic covers 26 counties. the other 6 get covered for free.

4. "It's not a state, it's 26 counties"

Who is saying that? Ive heard mmg called this place Ireland and the republic of ireland quite a lot lately.

5. "But...but....but look at what the Brits did ?"

But but but stop whinging after its all long over.

laoch na mona

anyone hear about the good Friday agreement
that means the past is the past its time to look to the future
if you bring up an ira attack out of fairness you should mention a british army/loyalist attack

maccored

i found a whole wraft of people to stick on ignore ....

Zubeneschamali

laoch na mona wrote: »

if you bring up an ira attack out of fairness you should mention a british army/loyalist attack

Which of the candidates for President was Chief of Staff of the British Army or UVF?

Mr.Micro

laoch na mona wrote: »

anyone hear about the good Friday agreement
that means the past is the past its time to look to the future

So long as it suits the dark glasses and balaclava boys.

pablomakaveli

I think the biggest double standard i've seen is people giving out about the media focusing on McGuinness's past yet saying nothing when the media gives just as much, if not more, focus on Norris's past.

murraykil

The biggest double standard of all.

Cogadh na Saoirse

pablomakaveli

murraykil wrote: »

The biggest double standard of all.

Cogadh na Saoirse

The IRA of the War Of Independence were the army of the elected Dáil thus had the backing of the majority of people in Ireland.

The provos were only serving themselves and didn't have the backing of the majority in Ireland.

No double standard there.

charlemont

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Reading through the threads re McGuinness throws out an astounding amount of double-standards, and maybe someone can shed some light on them.

1. "There was a war on"

This is used when his apologists want to excuse what he stands for.

However, if we apply this, it would then excuse the British from what they did, something the apologists refuse to do.

2. "Who wouldn't have 'fought back' ?"

Fighting "back" involves fighting against those attacking you, not random innocent people who may even have been on your side had you not murdered them.

There's a difference between general fighting and violence, isn't there ? And if there was a war on, see point 1.

3. "The president will represent the whole island"

Actually no. The president is the president of the Republic of Ireland which is the state, and the state is explicitly mentioned in the constitution; the same constitution that we voted to change in order to stop the madness. So the president doesn't represent the whole island, and there is no "new Ireland" as McGuinness spouts.

4. "It's not a state, it's 26 counties"

It is a state, and if you refuse to acknowledge that then you have no cause to run for president. It would be like an atheist running as president of heaven.

5. "But...but....but look at what the Brits did ?"

We know what they did. We've seen what they've since done in Iraq. It's a disgrace. But either

a) there was a war on (again, see point 1) or
b) it's irrelevant in the context of the election because they're not looking for our vote or to have any control over the state (see point 4)

Is there any chance that there are McGuinness supporters could actually have a discussion without throwing the above red herrings and strawmanning into the mix ?

I think you're beginning to crack up over Martin McGuinness.

blahfckingblah

Maybe you are blinkered on hating Sinn Fein but these inconsistencies and double standards are coming from every side. This election is being dogged with tit for tat whataboutery and finger pointing. I don't understand why its worse than the general election?

murraykil

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The IRA of the War Of Independence were the army of the elected Dáil thus had the backing of the majority of people in Ireland.

The provos were only serving themselves and didn't have the backing of the majority in Ireland.

No double standard there.

They didn't have the backing of the majority of Northern Ireland as it was an oppressive Unionist state, like Ireland was before the War of Independence and Northern Ireland was before the GFA, which MMG played a huge part in negotiating.

pablomakaveli

murraykil wrote: »

They didn't have the backing of the majority of Northern Ireland as it was an oppressive Unionist state, like Ireland was before the War of Independence and Northern Ireland was before the GFA, which MMG played a huge part in negotiating.

The provos didnt have widespread support down here despite there claims to represent us all and at the same time not recognizing the elected government of this country.

KeithAFC

Liam, it was only a war to Sinn Fein when it was the PIRA blowing people up. Yet when Loyalists tried to assassinate Gerry Adams, it was a crime or when the SAS killed PIRA members, it was a crime and it was wrong. The double standards is amazing.

murraykil

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The provos didnt have widespread support down here despite there claims to represent us all and at the same time not recognizing the elected government of this country.

I think they were more concerned with what was going on in Northern Ireland rather than care too much if someone all the way down in Cork, for example, supported them.

Liam Byrne

maccored wrote: »

My god, but MMG has surely freaked a lot of you people out. Makes for entertaining reading.

1. "There was a war on"

Indeed there f*cking well was

Way to go on missing (ignoring ?) the point completely. If there was, then there's no reason to complain about IRA actions or British actions

maccored wrote: »

2. "Who wouldn't have 'fought back' ?"

Certainly not people living south of the border who have the least clue of what it was actually like to live in the north.

Again, missing/ignoring the point; the "fought back" isn't an issue; the unwarranted attacks on innocent people is.

maccored wrote: »

3. "The president will represent the whole island"

Actually, the current president does. Its a matter of semantics that the republic covers 26 counties. the other 6 get covered for free.

Not according to the facts. It's not a matter of semantics that this state is 26 counties, and the president is voted for by the state and for the state.

maccored wrote: »

4. "It's not a state, it's 26 counties"

Who is saying that? Ive heard mmg called this place Ireland and the republic of ireland quite a lot lately.

Completely undermined by yourself above in the previous point.

maccored wrote: »

5. "But...but....but look at what the Brits did ?"

But but but stop whinging after its all long over.

Tell that to the SF crowd on here who are constantly saying the above re a lot of atrocities.

In fact, thanks for almost 100% proving what I was on about.

charlemont wrote: »

I think you're beginning to crack up over Martin McGuinness.

No - I'll only crack up if he gets elected, because of all the double-standards and inexcusable behaviour.

Liam Byrne

laoch na mona wrote: »

if you bring up an ira attack out of fairness you should mention a british army/loyalist attack

Even though there are loyalists running for election ? Why should we talk about them ?

.....and conversely, if anyone brings up an loyalist / British attack, or demands the release of an IRA thug, they should do likewise, for consistency, right ?

murraykil

KeithAFC wrote: »

Liam, it was only a war to Sinn Fein when it was the PIRA blowing people up. Yet when Loyalists tried to assassinate Gerry Adams, it was a crime or when the SAS killed PIRA members, it was a crime and it was wrong. The double standards is amazing.

It's unfortunate that any death had to occur for the GFA to come in to place. Civil rights movements tried, but were attacked and killed. The PIRA would not have gotten so much support or the likes of MMG or Gerry Adams might not have joined the PIRA if Unionism was not such a discriminatory regime.

pablomakaveli

murraykil wrote: »

I think they were more concerned with what was going on in Northern Ireland rather than care too much if someone all the way down in Cork, for example, supported them.

So the thoughts and opinions of people in the Republic, like Cork for example, are of less importance than those in the North. Good to know.

KeithAFC

murraykil wrote: »

It's unfortunate that any death had to occur for the GFA to come in to place. Civil rights movements tried, but were attacked and killed. The PIRA would not have gotten so much support or the likes of MMG or Gerry Adams might not have joined the PIRA if Unionism was not such a discriminatory regime.

Same old argument which lacks substance. The PIRA was a paramilitary set up to get a United Ireland. NOT civil rights. The double standards is amazing.

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

Liam, it was only a war to Sinn Fein when it was the PIRA blowing people up. Yet when Loyalists tried to assassinate Gerry Adams, it was a crime or when the SAS killed PIRA members, it was a crime and it was wrong. The double standards is amazing.

Its a bit ironic but not unexpected that you thanked a UVF supporter so agreeing with him, As above.

murraykil

pablomakaveli wrote: »

So the thoughts and opinions of people in the Republic, like Cork for example, are of less importance than those in the North. Good to know.

While the people in Northern Ireland were looking for civil rights, yes they were less important, much less important.

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

Same old argument which lacks substance. The PIRA was a paramilitary set up to get a United Ireland. NOT civil rights. The double standards is amazing.

What would your lot no about civil rights ? Your double standards here is disgusting and quite amazing.

murraykil

KeithAFC wrote: »

Same old argument which lacks substance. The PIRA was a paramilitary set up to get a United Ireland. NOT civil rights. The double standards is amazing.

The fact that you have no shame in supporting a political ethos which treated their neighbours like second class citizens is even more amazing.

Mr.Micro

murraykil wrote: »

They didn't have the backing of the majority of Northern Ireland as it was an oppressive Unionist state, like Ireland was before the War of Independence and Northern Ireland was before the GFA, which MMG played a huge part in negotiating.

What did the south get an oppressive dogmatic catholic state (with systemic sexual abuse) that held our country in its grasp until the eighties.

KeithAFC

Its a bit ironic but not unexpected that you thanked a UVF supporter so agreeing with him, As above.

I ain't the one with the double standards. If the Ulster Volunteers planned an operation and killed people, that is it. When a PIRA member gets shot or the SAS take them out or Gerry is nearly assassinated , it is all of a sudden a crime and it is wrong. That is the key point.

What would your lot no about civil rights ? Your double standards here is disgusting and quite amazing.

Presbyterians would know a lot about the lack of civil rights. A big reason why a lot went to America and built up a life for themselves in Dixie and fought with Washington in the American revolution.

The fact that you have no shame in supporting a political ethos which treated their neighbours like second class citizens is even more amazing.

Unionists support the link we have to the United Kingdom.

murraykil

Mr.Micro wrote: »

What did the south get an oppressive dogmatic catholic state (with systemic sexual abuse) that held our country in its grasp until the eighties.

Is this meant to be a question or a statement? It's a mix of both, but not really either.

murraykil

KeithAFC wrote: »

Unionists support the link we have to the United Kingdom.

And also caused and supported the oppression of their Catholic neighbours. You won't even touch this subject. Is this out of shame, pride or denial?

KeithAFC

murraykil wrote: »

And also caused and supported the oppression of their Catholic neighbours. You won't even touch this subject. Is this out of shame, pride or denial?

I think it is hypocrisy when the Republic of Ireland discriminated with Roman Catholic Church dogma and oppressed non Catholics with Catholic laws.

pablomakaveli

murraykil wrote: »

While the people in Northern Ireland were looking for civil rights, yes they were less important, much less important.

And this is why Republicans are disliked by many here. They dont give a crap about anyone who isnt singing from the same hymn sheet as them.

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

I ain't the one with the double standards. If the Ulster Volunteers planned an operation and killed people, that is it. When a PIRA member gets shot or the SAS take them out or Gerry is nearly assassinated , it is all of a sudden a crime and it is wrong. That is the key point.

Don't make me laugh you denied the shankill butchers and the dublin & monaghan bombings for years

Presbyterians would know a lot about the lack of civil rights. A big reason why a lot went to America and built up a life for themselves in Dixie and fought with Washington in the American revolution.

At least they learned about equality over there pity you didn't take some of there lessons

Unionists support the link we have to the United Kingdom.

Does the uk support the link to the unionists, ask the British labour party they will be dropping you sooner than you and your make believe world think.

Mr.Micro

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think it is hypocrisy when the Republic of Ireland discriminated with Roman Catholic Church dogma and oppressed non Catholics with Catholic laws.

To be fair KeithAFC, the catholic church oppressed most people in Ireland in one way or another. It still tries to influence Government but has lost most of that power thankfully.

murraykil

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think it is hypocrisy when the Republic of Ireland discriminated with Roman Catholic Church dogma and oppressed non Catholics with Catholic laws.

I am ashamed of the Catholic church in Ireland and the terrible pain that they inflicted upon innocent children. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Are you ashamed of the oppressive Unionist regime in Northern Ireland which created a discriminatory two-tier society?

KeithAFC

realies wrote: »

Does the uk support the link to the unionists, ask the British labour party they will be dropping you sooner than you and your make believe world think.

You actually think they have a say in the matter when they don't.

View

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The IRA of the War Of Independence were the army of the elected Dáil thus had the backing of the majority of people in Ireland.

Since the only members of the first Dail were SF MPs and SF secured a minority of the popular vote in the election that is stretching things.

ceegee

Presumably those using the claim that a "war" was going on would have no problem with the IRAs actions being judged by the standards of the Geneva convention?
AFAIK kneecapping teenagers for antisocial behaviour, blowing up shopping centres miles away from any viable target, diesel laundering, postoffice and bank robberies, etc. are somewhat frowned upon in the hague.

Mr.Micro

ceegee wrote: »

Presumably those using the claim that a "war" was going on would have no problem with the IRAs actions being judged by the standards of the Geneva convention?
AFAIK kneecapping teenagers for antisocial behaviour, blowing up shopping centres miles away from any viable target, diesel laundering, postoffice and bank robberies, etc. are somewhat frowned upon in the hague.

That is a very good point, to get an objective opinion,instead of getting the preachings to the faithful who believe every word and condone every action as unavoidable/necessary as spoken by St.Martin.

Liam Byrne

realies wrote: »

Its a bit ironic but not unexpected that you thanked a UVF supporter so agreeing with him, As above.

Are you saying that UVF supporters never say anything that's true ?

If someone tells the truth and doesn't apply double-standards, are we not allowed agree with them now because of who they are ?

I disagree wholeheartedly with what McGuinness represents, but I can agree with him on the fact that the banking crisis and FF's actions regarding it are a disgrace.

lugha

Much of the difficulty arises because the wrong charges are being levelled as MMG and Sinn Fein. It is more appealing emotively to his critics to cite innocent people and children in particular dying at the hand of republicans. And so incidents like Enniskillen and Omagh and Warrington etc get cited by those that make the case against MMG.

But this offers an easy comeback for his supporters who can quite credibly point out that violence perpetrated by a state or other political agents is a fact of life.; something that is observed all the time, even in the most stable and peaceful countries in the world. And such is the nature of physical force that it is all but impossible to guarantee that innocent people will not (literally!) get caught in the crossfire. Once you acknowledge this, the only real charge that can be levelled at physical force republicans is that they were unduly reckless in some of their actions, bombings specifically, and that they certainly were.

Bombings do of course put paid to the defence offered by some, that PIRA were a force to protect a Catholic community under attack; you do not plant bombs in self defence. And there might be a defence for them if they did limit their role to defending Catholics but they also had as a wider political agenda to bring about a united Ireland. But they did not have the support of the people whom they claimed to represent (the Irish people) to use violence to bring this end about and it was clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that they did not. Also, and critically, no senior person (or even supporter) of Sinn Fein have, to my knowledge, ever conceded that there was anything wrong with such a stance.

And to many of us it is self evidently true that it is wrong to take up arms on behalf of a people against the clear wishes of the people and that those that do so are not fit for public office. Just as it is evident to many of us that public office is not a fit place for someone who wilfully assisted others to evade tax, or who accepts substantial gifts from private benefactors or those who in one way or another behalf unethically or even illegally .

But of course, we live in a democracy and we have to accept the will of the people who on many occasions have found themselves untroubled by such ethical concerns and have frequently elected all manner of rogues! (Interestingly, some of the more vocal critics of certain low ethical standards of some politicians are seemingly oblivious to the questionable standards of others)

And this is the point that needs to be repeatedly highlighted when Sinn Fein seek political office. They engaged in, what to my mind, was fascist behaviour in the past and most importantly, continue to be unapologetic about this. This doesn’t have the same emotive impact as personalised stories about victims but it is IMO, the kernel of the difficulty many of us have and will continue to have with Sinn Fein.

Liam Byrne

lugha wrote: »

And such is the nature of physical force that it is all but impossible to guarantee that innocent people will not (literally!) get caught in the crossfire.

There's a massive difference between "caught in the crossfire" and "wantonly and irresponsibly targetted"

lugha wrote: »

And this is the point that needs to be repeatedly highlighted when Sinn Fein seek political office. They engaged in, what to my mind, was fascist behaviour in the past and most importantly, continue to be unapologetic about this. This doesn’t have the same emotive impact as personalised stories about victims but it is IMO, the kernel of the difficulty many of us have and will continue to have with Sinn Fein.

Agreed.

Sunnyisland

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Are you saying that UVF supporters never say anything that's true ?

If someone tells the truth and doesn't apply double-standards, are we not allowed agree with them now because of who they are ?

I disagree wholeheartedly with what McGuinness represents, but I can agree with him on the fact that the banking crisis and FF's actions regarding it are a disgrace.

I am certainly not saying that, But with KeithAFC who posts anti catholic and sectarian bile here and on other forums and i have yet to see you and other posters come out and challenge him with the same energy you do against republican violence it shows me on this topic at least what your double standards are,And i know you don't give a rats as you don't know me nor i you in a personal way but my admiration for you in your posts you have wrote is well gone out the window.keep posting your anti MMG posts as your support to there campaign in getting him elected is getting invaluable.Have you not learned nothing from Gay mitchell.

Zubeneschamali

realies wrote: »

with KeithAFC who posts anti catholic and sectarian bile here and on other forums and i have yet to see you and other posters come out and challenge him with the same energy you do against republican violence it shows me on this topic at least what your double standards are

So if we criticise a major political party for links to terrorism, but fail to give equal time to one Loyalist internet blowhard, that's a double standard?

maccored

You wish Liam, you wish . Misread my posts all you want - it wont purge you of your hatred of SF

Liam Byrne wrote: »

maccored wrote: »

My god, but MMG has surely freaked a lot of you people out. Makes for entertaining reading.

1. "There was a war on"

Indeed there f*cking well was

Way to go on missing (ignoring ?) the point completely. If there was, then there's no reason to complain about IRA actions or British accents

maccored wrote: »

2. "Who wouldn't have 'fought back' ?"

Certainly not people living south of the border who have the least clue of what it was actually like to live in the north.

Again, missing/ignoring the point; the "fought back" isn't an issue; the unwarranted attacks on innocent people is.

maccored wrote: »

3. "The president will represent the whole island"

Actually, the current president does. Its a matter of semantics that the republic covers 26 counties. the other 6 get covered for free.

Not according to the facts. It's not a matter of semantics that this state is 26 counties, and the president is voted for by the state and for the state.

maccored wrote: »

4. "It's not a state, it's 26 counties"

Who is saying that? Ive heard mmg called this place Ireland and the republic of ireland quite a lot lately.

Completely undermined by yourself above in the previous point.

maccored wrote: »

5. "But...but....but look at what the Brits did ?"

But but but stop whinging after its all long over.

Tell that to the SF crowd on here who are constantly saying the above re a lot of atrocities.

In fact, thanks for almost 100% proving what I was on about.

charlemont wrote: »

I think you're beginning to crack up over Martin McGuinness.

No - I'll only crack up if he gets elected, because of all the double-standards and inexcusable behaviour.

maccored

And youre telling me that the BA's habit of collusion and shooting people at checkpoints would fit with the geneva convention? Stop being so simple minded

ceegee wrote: »

Presumably those using the claim that a "war" was going on would have no problem with the IRAs actions being judged by the standards of the Geneva convention?
AFAIK kneecapping teenagers for antisocial behaviour, blowing up shopping centres miles away from any viable target, diesel laundering, postoffice and bank robberies, etc. are somewhat frowned upon in the hague.

Sunnyisland

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So if we criticise a major political party for links to terrorism, but fail to give equal time to one Loyalist internet blowhard, that's a double standard?

Its not the criticism of the links between Sf & Ira, there nothing new,its the blatant double standards of just focusing time after time on the republican violence and to go as thanking one of the Norths most sectarian organizations supporter here who hates everything that the island of Ireland stands for, yep that gauls me.

K-9

realies wrote: »

Its not the criticism of the links between Sf & Ira, there nothing new,its the blatant double standards of just focusing time after time on the republican violence and to go as thanking one of the Norths most sectarian organizations supporter here who hates everything that the island of Ireland stands for, yep that gauls me.

Jaysus, that guy gets far too much attention as it is. I really do wonder why some bother, but each to their own I suppose.

Sunnyisland

K-9 wrote: »

Jaysus, that guy gets far too much attention as it is. I really do wonder why some bother, but each to their own I suppose.

Have a very personal relationship with the UVF, and the point of my first post to Liam byrne was i was shocked that he of all people would be thanking KeithAFC.That point is getting lost now and each to there own indeed.

Liam Byrne

maccored wrote: »

You wish Liam, you wish . Misread my posts all you want - it wont purge you of your hatred of SF

What did I misread them ? Explain it to me, rather than throw out discrediting generalisations.

If there was no war, SF / IRA are lying
If there was a war, atrocities on both sides need to be accepted

SF/IRA don't subscribe to either of the above and sit between them, bitching about atrocities committed by others but excusing their own.

And "fighting BACK" doesn't involved murdering third parties.

The above are the facts and something SF need to deal with in order to have any credibility whatsoever.