Sinn Fein- Never forget

golden lane

sinn fein is a legal political party, people are free to vote as they wish.....

have we not come a long way....i hope the rest of the journey is not spoiled....

Crooked Jack

Monty Burnz wrote: »

A just peace - where those who committed atrocities paid the penalty for them. So basically what we have, only without all the loyalist and republican killers back on the streets. You'll object that that would be hard to sell to the terrorists. You are undoubtedly right.

I will object that it wouldnt have gotten out the gate and we'd all be worse off now. Thank God people like you werent involved in the decision making.

Hannibal

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If Sinn Fein actually dealt with this properly, their supporters here on boards wouldn't have to desperately try to quell any discussion on it when it does come up. The failure is with SF, not with the people who disapprove of the murder of Gardaí and throwing parties for the murderers.

Sinn Féin did deal with it properly.

They were in the process of negotiating with the IRA on the peace process, the couldn't condemn this with the risks of isolating factions of the IRA.

Certains brigades and members of the IRA were more hardline than others and some couldn't see the political picture, this can be seen with how the Real IRA split formed.

The murder of Jerry McCabe was no doubt wrong and was done without approval of the IRA but they were still senior members involved in the murder and the delicate issue is that they could have formed a breakaway if not given help after the issue. This could not be risked at any cost, and unfortunate as it may sound the murder of Garda McCabe is just a footnote in a much much bigger picture and period of Irish history.

Monty Burnz

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I will object that it wouldnt have gotten out the gate and we'd all be worse off now. Thank God people like you werent involved in the decision making.

People who object to murder? Yeah, we are a bane on society. What we need is more enthusiastic supporters of political murder like Sinn Fein. That would really shake things up.

guitarzero

I dont think people should forget aspects of any party.

What we seem to keep forgetting is how government itself is a joke that we keep falling for.

Crooked Jack

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't think you dealt with that one very well tbh. Point to Einhard.

Ah, tough call ref. Im gutted now because it's your approval I crave.
How on earth am i supposed to have a discussion with someone who is inventing scenarios and then getting outraged by them.

Einhard

Chuck Stone wrote: »

First of all you should perhaps try to widen your camera angle a little when you project single paragraph snap-shots of a complex conflict rather than focussing on the violence of one particular side.

I'm focusing on this particalr angle Chuck because that's the focus of the thread, and because more significantly, none of those on the Loyalist or British side involved in such activities are currently politically active in the Republic, and seeking my vote. I trust you'll see the significance of that.

Second, welcome to the nature of conflict and peace settlements on planet Earth. Enjoy your stay.

Oh I think you've gotten me wrong. The GFA was a bitter, but necessary pill, and I would have voted for it had I the mandate at the time. It's another thing entirely to state that accepting a peace resolution demands that one embrace those who directed the violence. Again, I trust you see the difference. It's a basic, but fundamental one. And one, funnily enough, that Sinn Fein supporters tend to confuse. Fancy that!

K-9

Crooked Jack wrote: »

The IRA did not deliberately target civilians. Were civilians killed accidentally? Certainly. Does that make it OK? Absolutely not. Did members of the IRA on rare occasion act of their own accord outside the rules of the army? Yes. Does that make it OK? No. But to say that the IRA deliberately targeted civilians is wrong, disingenuous and shows a complete lack of understanding about the IRA. For example, why would they deliberately target civilians when they knew full well that such actions would have a negative affect on their aims and support.

This is blatant revisionism , how was Bloody Friday and bombing restaurants, Bombs at train stations, pubs and shopping areas like Warrington not deliberately targeting civilians?

Einhard

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Ah, tough call ref. Im gutted now because it's your approval I crave.
How on earth am i supposed to have a discussion with someone who is inventing scenarios and then getting outraged by them.

In fairness, I don't think it's a particularly outlandish scenario.

Monty Burnz

Dotsey wrote: »

Sinn Féin did deal with it properly.

They were in the process of negotiating with the IRA on the peace process, the couldn't condemn this with the risks of isolating factions of the IRA.

Certains brigades and members of the IRA were more hardline than others and some couldn't see the political picture, this can be seen with how the Real IRA split formed.

The murder of Jerry McCabe was no doubt wrong and was done without approval of the IRA but they were still senior members involved in the murder and the delicate issue is that they could have formed a breakaway if not given help after the issue. This could not be risked at any cost, and unfortunate as it may sound the murder of Garda McCabe is just a footnote in a much much bigger picture and period of Irish history.

So the end justified the means, essentially?

Crooked Jack

Monty Burnz wrote: »

People who object to murder? Yeah, we are a bane on society. What we need is more enthusiastic supporters of political murder like Sinn Fein. That would really shake things up.

People who are unwilling to compromise or see the big picture. They are indeed the bane of society.

Einhard

Dotsey wrote: »

Certain people on here somehow manage to blame the whole Troubles on republicans and in particular the IRA or Sinn Féin.

We can only be thankful that these same people with such a narrow focus were never involved in conflict resolution that brought about peace in any way, shape or form.

You really don't get it. The people you speak abotu blame the IRA and Sinn Fein, and the Brits, and the Loyalist terrorists, and bigots like Paisley. The fundamental difference however, is that neither the Brits nor the Loyalists nor Paisley are seeking the vote of the people of Ireland!! How is that basic concept so difficult to comprehend?

Monty Burnz

K-9 wrote: »

This is blatant revisionism , how was Bloody Friday and bombing restaurants, Bombs at train stations, pubs and shopping areas like Warrington not deliberately targeting civilians?

Hey, there could have been an MI6 man in those crowds, they were legitimate targets. Some of the children killed could have grown up to be soldiers too.

Monty Burnz

Crooked Jack wrote: »

People who are unwilling to compromise or see the big picture. They are indeed the bane of society.

Hang on a second - the guys who carried out a campaign of murder for 30 years are the moderates, and people like me are the extremists?

Good one. I'll write that one down.

blahfckingblah

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Hang on a second - the guys who carried out a campaign of murder for 30 years are the moderates, and people like me are the extremists?

Good one. I'll write that one down.

i think he meant that you are unwilling to even attempt to understand any position that is not your own, accept compromise or possibly reconsile

Crooked Jack

K-9 wrote: »

This is blatant revisionism , how was Bloody Friday and bombing restaurants, Bombs at train stations, pubs and shopping areas like Warrington not deliberately targeting civilians?

If you'd care to point out specific actions I'd be happy to look into them but there s not much I can do when you're using generalities like "restaurants and pubs."
As for bloody friday and Warrington, well, warnings were sent for each and every bomb on Bloody Friday. They were either ignored, not followed properly or werent communicated properly by the bombers. But the fact that 21 bombs went off almost simultaneously across Belfast, a fairly small city, and there were only six civilian deaths (yes, six too many) that would be a fairly clear indication that civilians were not the targets.
Warrington was part of a campaign to bring the war to England, and a bloody welcome one at that.
It was nothing short of tragic those children were killed and their families have my total sympathy. Again, warnings were sent and not followed, pretty unlikely they would have done that if civilians were the target.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of these actions, it is pretty clear that civilians were not the targets.

Monty Burnz

blahfckingblah wrote: »

i think he meant that you are unwilling to even attempt to understand any position that is not your own, accept compromise or possibly reconsile

I can reconcile just fine, but I find it hard to reconcile murderers with democracy, and those who support murder lecturing us from their imagined high moral ground.

Crooked Jack

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I can reconcile just fine, but I find it hard to reconcile murderers with democracy, and those who support murder lecturing us from their imagined high moral ground.

Republicans were willing to compromise for the common good. You dont seem to be able to.

Stheno

blahfckingblah wrote: »

i think he meant that you are unwilling to even attempt to understand any position that is not your own, accept compromise or possibly reconsile

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I can reconcile just fine, but I find it hard to reconcile murderers with democracy, and those who support murder lecturing us from their imagined high moral ground.

I get Montys position, I worked with a former IRA bomber back in the nineties and gained a lot of insight into why people in the 70s/80s joined the IRA and did what they did.

However as a result of my personal history, I loathe Sinn Fein, cannot abide them, and see them not only as a relic of a very recent murderous past, but as pure economic charlatans. Strangely it's their complete and utter lack of grasp of economics that gets to me more than their murderous past.

Whilst I learned to move on from the atrocities committed by republicans as a result of working with a former IRA member, I cannot move on from the lies/economic fairy tales currently espoused by the Sinn Fein that now exists.

Nor do I believe that they have forgotten the power of the gun.

Chuck Stone

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So there's no chance I'll ever hear you expressing outrage about some action or inaction by the US or the Syrians or the Taleban or the Brits or whatever that doesn't directly affect you? If you ever do that, I can safely assume that is you pretending to be outraged?

Good to know.

Being genuinely outraged by something they did 16 years ago? I don't think that would be too healthy.

What irks me is the one-sidedness and double standards of people who come on here to condemn all things republican/nationalist without placing it in the wider context of what happened up north.

On the double standards - you can be sure that almost every single person writing in these forums voted yes for power sharing and the GFA in the north yet the idea of SF being democratically elected into government in the south appals them.

Fwiw I have family who had guns pointed in their faces by British soldiers and who lived in damp hovels with young children while their Protestant counterparts were given the keys to a spanking new house as they went on their honeymoons.

Am I outraged by it? No. They don't consider themselves victims and they don't express outrage so who the fuck am I to?

K-9

Crooked Jack wrote: »

If you'd care to point out specific actions I'd be happy to look into them but there s not much I can do when you're using generalities like "restaurants and pubs."
As for bloody friday and Warrington, well, warnings were sent for each and every bomb on Bloody Friday. They were either ignored, not followed properly or werent communicated properly by the bombers. But the fact that 21 bombs went off almost simultaneously across Belfast, a fairly small city, and there were only six civilian deaths (yes, six too many) that would be a fairly clear indication that civilians were not the targets.
Warrington was part of a campaign to bring the war to England, and a bloody welcome one at that.
It was nothing short of tragic those children were killed and their families have my total sympathy. Again, warnings were sent and not followed, pretty unlikely they would have done that if civilians were the target.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of these actions, it is pretty clear that civilians were not the targets.

You've shifted the target! You didn't mention anything about warnings originally. Ok, so who was Warrington targeting, what was the legitimate target?

What were the targets on Bloody Friday?

The Harrods bombing would be another one, 6 dead, can't see much of a target there either.

Laminations

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Everyone has skeletons so vote for no one? Really?

When one of your skeletons is alive and well and sitting in the Dail it's a bit different. Martin Ferris welcomed out and chauffeured away Garda killers in the very recent past. Put your skeletons in a closet and you'll have a point

Einhard

Crooked Jack wrote: »

If you'd care to point out specific actions I'd be happy to look into them but there s not much I can do when you're using generalities like "restaurants and pubs."
As for bloody friday and Warrington, well, warnings were sent for each and every bomb on Bloody Friday. They were either ignored, not followed properly or werent communicated properly by the bombers. But the fact that 21 bombs went off almost simultaneously across Belfast, a fairly small city, and there were only six civilian deaths (yes, six too many) that would be a fairly clear indication that civilians were not the targets.
Warrington was part of a campaign to bring the war to England, and a bloody welcome one at that.
It was nothing short of tragic those children were killed and their families have my total sympathy. Again, warnings were sent and not followed, pretty unlikely they would have done that if civilians were the target.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of these actions, it is pretty clear that civilians were not the targets.

I think that placing bombs in the middle of a busy city centre street on a Saturday afternoon a la Warrington can only be considered targeting civilians.

Hannibal

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So the end justified the means, essentially?

When you see what the situation was like to begin with and now you see the results, from the horrors of war and after the rule of a viscious apartheid state it's a pretty amazing transformation in the 16 years of peace.

Einhard wrote: »

You really don't get it. The people you speak abotu blame the IRA and Sinn Fein, and the Brits, and the Loyalist terrorists, and bigots like Paisley. The fundamental difference however, is that neither the Brits nor the Loyalists nor Paisley are seeking the vote of the people of Ireland!! How is that basic concept so difficult to comprehend?

So Sinn Féin should not be allowed into a democratic election?

FF, FG and Labour all have a shady past and we can't keep looking into the past.

Yes McGuinness, Gerry Kelly, Pat Doherty and Martin Ferris were once leading IRA men. But look anywhere in the world and you have US Presidents who have committed far worse crimes and are never condemned, all leaders in the Middle East have blood on their hands, the unelected English Queen who is being celebrated this year but was head of the armed forces of many atrocities stretching back nearly 60 years.

The difference with McGuinness etc is that they have faced upto the wrong doings but crucially also understand the situation that created the mess and are working tirelessly and selflessly to turn around a two sided province and are trying to build bridges between peoples and communities who have been blinded by secterian hatred for centuries. Yet somehow these same republican leaders are condemned for this

Crooked Jack

K-9 wrote: »

You've shifted the target! You didn't mention anything about warnings originally. Ok, so who was Warrington targeting, what was the legitimate target?

What were the targets on Bloody Friday?

The Harrods bombing would be another one, 6 dead, can't see much of a target there either.

I most certainly have not shifted the target. You said the IRA targeted civilians and I provided you with the evidence that they did not.
As I said, Warrington was part of a campaign to bring the reality of what their government was doing in Ireland home to English people. First target was a gas facility second was a high street. Warnings given for both and the first led to no injuries.
Harrods was part of the same campaign to bring the war to England and a 40 minute warning was given. The IRA also denied sanctioning this.
Bloody Friday had a number of economic and military targets.
Again, i must stress I am not arguing on the rights or wrongs of these incidents, merely pointing out that your accusation that the IRA targeted civilians is false.

Crooked Jack

Einhard wrote: »

I think that placing bombs in the middle of a busy city centre street on a Saturday afternoon a la Warrington can only be considered targeting civilians.

Then why give warnings?

Einhard

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What irks me is the one-sidedness and double standards of people who come on here to condemn all things republican/nationalist without placing it in the wider context of what happened up north.

I think people are only too happy to place things in context, but that's not the nature of these threads. I've commented before about how the Brits share a huge amount of the blame for the Troubles, and how obscene it is that the likes of Gusty Spence were transformed into respectable figures. However, people down south are obviously going to be more preoccupied with Sinn fein because it's SF on the posters outise their doors, SF canvassers asking for their vote, and SF seeking to represent them. I'm sure everyone here heartily dislikes Viktor Yanukovych's regime in Ukraine, but there are little or no comments about him because he doesn't really concern Irish voters. And neither, to be honest, do Loyalists, or the Brits. It's only rational then, that SF are the focus of such debates.

On the double standards - you can be sure that almost every single person writing in these forums voted yes for power sharing and the GFA in the north yet the idea of SF being democratically elected into government in the south appals them.

I don't think that's double standards at all. After WW II, the allies decided against a widespread de-Nazification programme in Germany because they realised both how difficult it would be to implement, and how damaging it would be to the nascent German states. I'm sure that many people were appalled by the prospect of some quite prmominent Nazis remaining untouched, but they had to live with it for the greater good. It wasn't hypocritical, and it wasn't an example of double standards.

It's the same with the GFA. Many people voted for it almost under protest. They disliked its provisions, but the alternative was far worse. That surely doesn't mean that, after accepting the lesser of evils, they should embrace the very people who perpetrated that very evil.

hungrypig

gaffer91 wrote: »

On the internet recently(I think it was something to do with Egypt) I was reminded of the killing of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe by the IRA.

The 16th anniversary of his brutal slaying at the hands of IRA members occurs next week. As we see the seemingly unending rise in support for Sinn Fein, I think it is important to gently remind people, particularly young people who are seriously considering voting/giving a transfer to SF, that they are not at all as far removed from the yobs who terrorised people on both sides of the border (and both sides of the Irish Sea) as they'd have you believe. It is also important to remember that it was Martin Ferris who picked up the murderers (because this is what they are; they only received the manslaughter verdict because of witness intimidation as anyone familiar with the case knows) upon their unfairly premature release from prison in 2009. While SF would like to sweep these despicable actions under the rug, it is important that they are always kept fresh in people's minds.

When deciding whether or not to vote for SF, if you bear in mind their voodoo economics (it's amazing how far they think the pension reserve fund will stretch isn't it?), the bank robberies, the bombings, the murders of people like Robert McCartney (all of this not even 20 years ago), their questionable expenses and then still decide to vote for them, then I fear for you, and for this country.

While this thread serves to remind people of SF's disgraceful past, the question I want to ask is- when you bear all this in mind how does anyone vote for SF, never mind 1 in 5 voters?

is there any end to threads like these, they are so repetitive and tedious. just accept that 20% of the population disagree with you and get over yourself

K-9

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I most certainly have not shifted the target. You said the IRA targeted civilians and I provided you with the evidence that they did not.
As I said, Warrington was part of a campaign to bring the reality of what their government was doing in Ireland home to English people. First target was a gas facility second was a high street. Warnings given for both and the first led to no injuries.
Harrods was part of the same campaign to bring the war to England and a 40 minute warning was given. The IRA also denied sanctioning this.
Bloody Friday had a number of economic and military targets.
Again, i must stress I am not arguing on the rights or wrongs of these incidents, merely pointing out that your accusation that the IRA targeted civilians is false.

Things can go wrong with bombs to state the obvious, they can go off prematurely, incorrect warnings can be given, unclear warnings, police mishear, takes too long to clear etc. That's the problem with bombs in shopping areas. If you think a shopping centre is a legitimate target, fair enough, I'd have thought an army barracks would make more sense but there you are.

Hannibal

K-9 wrote: »

Things can go wrong with bombs to state the obvious, they can go off prematurely, incorrect warnings can be given, unclear warnings, police mishear, takes too long to clear etc. That's the problem with bombs in shopping areas. If you think a shopping centre is a legitimate target, fair enough, I'd have thought an army barracks would make more sense but there you are.

Army barracks are generally well secured and difficult to get near, shopping areas can cause major commercial destruction and the costs on the state can be more severe due to lots of buildings in close proximity which is how it's a legitimate target due to costs.