Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

Options
1…1718202223…29

Comments

  • Options
    #572
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Sure, There is no similarity.

    In one case a deputy First Minister made statement that the political party he is a member of was considering whether they may withdraw support for the police. A stupid, ill advised, step backwards but nothing more than an empty threat as it turns out.

    Really? You know what would have happened if Adams was charged?
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    In the other case the Commissioner of police passed on a piece of confidential information about a democratically elected member of parliament (who like the arrested Daly was also being critical of the police) to the Minister for Justice who then used that information publicly in an attempt to discredit this elected critic and in doing so broke the law.

    The latter is by far worse.
    No it is not. It's far more trivial stuff - bad and all as it is.

    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The connection is alleged political interference in policing.
    Yeah, I'd got that. Lets see - one instance had actual threats of subverting policing across the board, with bully-boy tactics to influence an ongoing investigation, and the other had no actual interference in policing at all, but rather the political use of an 'un-interfered with' police caution.


  • Options
    #573
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    War of Independence began in 1916.

    No it did not. Learn some history.


  • Options
    #574
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Why is it that people throw around the word "whataboutery" as if it had some magical debating ability to defeat all arguments. The fallacy of appeal to worse problems is exactly as it name implies, deflecting an argument by appealing to a perceived more important, but largely unrelated problem. For example, in response to people complaining about poverty levels in Ireland, saying "but what about the starving babies in Africa".

    The issue of police bias north and south of the border in Ireland is extremely relevant to the question of whether Sein Fein are "bad", the subject of the thread, as public opinion is largely derived from PR statements from the police forces that the public read in the media. Anyone who thinks the former RUC and at least significant elements within the PSNI are unbiased has close to zero knowledge of the Northern Ireland conflict. It is the equivalent of saying that the SAP treated all citizens of South Africa equally during apartheid.

    The "holier than thou" attitude from some segments in the Republic towards the Northern Ireland conflict is truly sickening, and nothing worse than the hypocrisy as Bann has pointed out of the old "good" IRA versus the new "bad" IRA. As an example, distasteful as this incident was, Jean McConville was murdered because the IRA, possibly or even probably incorrectly, believed she was an informer. The faux outrage from some segments in the Republic is rank hypocrisy, given that their own heroes of the war of independence were burying Protestants in bog holes in west Cork for similar perceived or real activities.

    This is not whataboutery, it is comparing like with like. Whether people like it or not, or find it distasteful or not, informers are a guerrilla army's most serious threat, not the military forces they are fighting. The IRA, like any guerrilla army, could only continue to wage war if they eliminated all informers from their community, while also maintaining a critical mass of support among their community, a challenging balance to put it mildly. Ultimately they failed in this effort, as more than anything else it was informers within the IRA's own ranks that lead to the lasting ceasefire.

    Except I am not comparing anything to the above even though I don't agree with your analysis.


  • Options
    #575
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    alastair wrote: »
    If you choose to ignore the 1918 election results - sure. But why would you do that? The Provos had no such mandate - ever.

    I'm personally of the view that the 1918 results should not have mandated a campaign of violence, but recognize that this is a minority view.

    The 1918 elections absolutely did not mandate a campaign of violence. They did however represent the democratic wishes of a majority of the population of Ireland. While the IRA were always likely to launch a war anyway, it was the failure of the British to respond to the 1918 election that led to the war of independence being supported by enough of the population to make it a viable war.


  • Options
    #576
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    How do you know?

    How do you know that the PSNI didn't feel pressured into releasing Adams without charge, because of the potential threat to the stability of Northern Ireland's society posed by the deputy first minister making his party's support for policing conditional on the "right" behaviour from the police?

    The legal limits to how long he could be held may have played a part no?

    Sooo - you are arguing that the PNSI arrested him, applied for and were granted an extra 48 hours to question him and then let him go without charge due to political pressure motivated by fear of the excrement hitting the fan?

    Did that pressure not exist during the first 48 hours he was held? Was it the extension that nearly broke the camels back?

    Could it not equally be that the PNSI were on a fishing expedition and didn't have any actual bait just shiny hearsay?

    Why do people find it so hard to believe there may still be people in the PNSI who are passionately loyalist?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #577
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    alastair wrote: »
    No it did not. Learn some history.

    Ha. You have no idea how funny that is or why.


  • Options
    #578
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The 1918 elections absolutely did not mandate a campaign of violence. They did however represent the democratic wishes of a majority of the population of Ireland. While the IRA were always likely to launch a war anyway, it was the failure of the British to respond to the 1918 election that led to the war of independence being supported by enough of the population to make it a viable war.

    The British were doing what any state would do under the circumstances. SF refused to engage with them, and Ireland was part of the UK. Without dialogue nothing was going to change. Nothing did change without dialogue.

    And where did the provos garner any mandate for their actions? It certainly wasn't at the ballot box - north or south.


  • Options
    #579
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Ha. You have no idea how funny that is or why.
    The joke's on you if you believe the war of independence started in 1916 tbh.


  • Options
    #580
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    alastair wrote: »
    No it did not. Learn some history.

    The war of independence absolutely started in 1916. There was no ability to continue the war in the immediate aftermath, as those participating were either executed or locked up (roughly 1,800, more than enough to wage an effective guerrilla war). Stage 2 was planned by those interned in Frongoch, most of whom like Collins were involved in 1916.


  • Options
    #581
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The legal limits to how long he could be held may have played a part no?

    Sooo - you are arguing that the PNSI arrested him, applied for and were granted an extra 48 hours to question him and then let him go without charge due to political pressure motivated by fear of the excrement hitting the fan?

    Did that pressure not exist during the first 48 hours he was held? Was it the extension that nearly broke the camels back?

    Could it not equally be that the PNSI were on a fishing expedition and didn't have any actual bait just shiny hearsay?

    Why do people find it so hard to believe there may still be people in the PNSI who are passionately loyalist?

    I don't think people find that hard to believe at all, the fact is we just don't know . Maybe they were or maybe they felt the information at hand warranted the course they followed .

    Martin McGuinness's actions thereafter was just an unnecessary own goal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #582
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The war of independence absolutely started in 1916.
    Actually it did not.


  • Options
    #583
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    alastair wrote: »
    The joke's on you if you believe the war of independence started in 1916 tbh.

    No. The joke is on my employers who pay me to lecture in the discipline of history and the professor from Trinity who acted as my extern but didn't realise that like Jon Snow - I know nothing.


  • Options
    #584
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    marienbad wrote: »

    Martin McGuinness's actions thereafter was just an unnecessary own goal.

    I agree 100%.


  • Options
    #585
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    No. The joke is on my employers who pay me to lecture in the discipline of history and the professor from Trinity who acted as my extern but didn't realise that like Jon Snow - I know nothing.

    The discipline of history eh? Your employers need to start looking for someone who actually knows what they're talking about then.


  • Options
    #586
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    alastair wrote: »
    The British were doing what any state would do under the circumstances. SF refused to engage with them, and Ireland was part of the UK. Without dialogue nothing was going to change. Nothing did change without dialogue.

    Ireland effectively voted to secede from the UK in 1918. The proper response from the British would have been to hold an all Ireland referendum on the question of sovereignty.
    alastair wrote: »
    And where did the provos garner any mandate for their actions? It certainly wasn't at the ballot box - north or south.

    The mandate to protect their communities from loyalist attack. Remember that to those communities in the early days of the conflict IRA meant "I Ran Away".


  • Options
    #587
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    alastair wrote: »
    Really? You know what would have happened if Adams was charged?


    No it is not. It's far more trivial stuff - bad and all as it is.



    Yeah, I'd got that. Lets see - one instance had actual threats of subverting policing across the board, with bully-boy tactics to influence an ongoing investigation, and the other had no actual interference in policing at all, but rather the political use of an 'un-interfered with' police caution.

    If you think a Minister for Justice knowingly breaking the law is trivial I hate to think what you consider serious.. oh, apparently stupid empty threats are more serious..


  • Options
    #588
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Ireland effectively voted to secede from the UK in 1918. The proper response from the British would have been to hold an all Ireland referendum on the question of sovereignty.



    The mandate to protect their communities from loyalist attack. Remember that to those communities in the early days of the conflict IRA meant "I Ran Away".

    Not to mention all those SF candidates who were elected to Westminster. I believe some of those candidates were elected while being detained at Her Majesty's pleasure for terrorist offences and/or membership of an illegal organisation so one would assume those who voted for them in enough numbers for them to be elected did so knowing who and what they were voting for.

    I seem to recall that sort of thing was happening back when the 'old' IRA seemingly got their mandate....


  • Options
    #589
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    alastair wrote: »
    Actually it did not.

    The individuals who started an armed rebellion in 1916 were locked up from 1916 to 1917, and immediately upon release started a new offensive, already planned while they were interned, albeit with more intelligent tactics. How is that not a continuation of the same war started in 1916? It was the same lads and lassies, they just got smarter from their failed first attempt.


  • Options
    #590
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    alastair wrote: »
    The discipline of history eh? Your employers need to start looking for someone who actually knows what they're talking about then.

    Attack the poster time is it?


  • Options
    #591
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    marienbad wrote: »
    Except I am not comparing anything to the above even though I don't agree with your analysis.

    What is it you disagree with specifically?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #592
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Ireland effectively voted to secede from the UK in 1918. The proper response from the British would have been to hold an all Ireland referendum on the question of sovereignty.
    So, if Donegal decided to secede from the Republic, the proper response would to have an all-Donegal referendum on sovereignty? Not consult the rest of the state?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    The mandate to protect their communities from loyalist attack. Remember that to those communities in the early days of the conflict IRA meant "I Ran Away".
    That's no mandate. That's a flag of convenience. Who voted for these self-appointed 'protectors'?


  • Options
    #593
    Dick phelan
    Registered Users Posts: 3,072 ✭✭✭Dick phelan


    My problem with Sinn Fein is they are anti hard work and business people, nothing wrong with earning 100k a year if you worked damn hard for it and entrepreneurs should be encouraged not hit with massive taxes so they end up with the same money as someone doing a factory job for example. Why would you take the risk if you won't get the reward. Secondly they would drive business out of Ireland imo, They want to raise the corporation tax also they conditions they want for workers would be unattractive to businesses. They seem to think everyone should have the same standard of living, why should they of course a doctor should earn a lot more and have a better SOL then someone on Welfare. Nothing against those on Dole and they should have an acceptable life healthcare education ect but Sinn Fein policy discourages hard work imo.


  • Options
    #594
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Attack the poster time is it?
    Attack the nonsense of an appeal to authority in the face of patently incorrect claims. The war of independence lasted from 1919-1921. That's not 1916-21, nor 1916-1999, but 1919-1921.


  • Options
    #595
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The individuals who started an armed rebellion in 1916 were locked up from 1916 to 1917, and immediately upon release started a new offensive, already planned while they were interned, albeit with more intelligent tactics. How is that not a continuation of the same war started in 1916? It was the same lads and lassies, they just got smarter from their failed first attempt.
    And some of them kept fighting past 1921. That's not really the point, is it?


  • Options
    #596
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    If you think a Minister for Justice knowingly breaking the law is trivial I hate to think what you consider serious.. oh, apparently stupid empty threats are more serious..

    Again - how do you know it was an empty threat?


  • Options
    #597
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Until they are elected, of course. No sign of any of that stuff in the North.


  • Options
    #598
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Sooo - you are arguing that the PNSI arrested him, applied for and were granted an extra 48 hours to question him and then let him go without charge due to political pressure motivated by fear of the excrement hitting the fan?
    No, I'm not arguing that. You can tell quite clearly that I'm not arguing that by the fact that I didn't say it.

    What I'm arguing against is the assertion - stated as a bald assumption of fact, just like the constant bald assertion as fact over the past few days that the PSNI's actions were politically motivated - that McGuinness's words were an empty threat.

    You are arguing that the deputy first minister can threaten to withdraw his party's support for policing, and that there's no conceivable way that that could in any way have influenced the decision-making process of the police force, while simultaneously believing - without the evidence of an actual publicly-issued threat - that the only possible explanation for a police force questioning someone in connection with a murder investigation is a political motivation.

    I just can't get my head around that scale of double-think.
    Why do people find it so hard to believe there may still be people in the PNSI who are passionately loyalist?
    You're going to have a great deal of trouble finding a single post on this forum where anyone has claimed that no-one in the PSNI is passionately loyalist. You'll have a much easier task finding post after post after post after post claiming - without even bothering to adduce the faintest shred of evidence - that the whole thing was politically motivated.

    I mean, jesus. I can understand how there could be claims of political motivation if Adams had been picked up off the street without there ever having been the slightest suggestion by anyone ever of any involvement in the McConville murder. What's beyond me is how so many people don't seem to be capable of even countenancing the barest possibility that maybe - just maybe - this is an example of a police force, y'know, policing.


  • Options
    #599
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Dick phelan wrote: »
    My problem with Sinn Fein is they are anti hard work and business people, nothing wrong with earning 100k a year if you worked damn hard for it and entrepreneurs should be encouraged not hit with massive taxes so they end up with the same money as someone doing a factory job for example. Why would you take the risk if you won't get the reward. Secondly they would drive business out of Ireland imo, They want to raise the corporation tax also they conditions they want for workers would be unattractive to businesses. They seem to think everyone should have the same standard of living, why should they of course a doctor should earn a lot more and have a better SOL then someone on Welfare. Nothing against those on Dole and they should have an acceptable life healthcare education ect but Sinn Fein policy discourages hard work imo.

    Your argument here though is against left wing politics in general, not Sinn Fein specifically. For democracy to function you need alternatives. What are the left wing alternatives in the ROI?


  • Options
    #600
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Your argument here though is against left wing politics in general, not Sinn Fein specifically. For democracy to function you need alternatives. What are the left wing alternatives in the ROI?


    Socialist Party
    WP
    PBP
    SWP
    Labour (if Social Democrats count?)
    WUAG
    Various independents


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #601
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    alastair wrote: »
    Attack the nonsense of an appeal to authority in the face of patently incorrect claims. The war of independence lasted from 1919-1921. That's not 1916-21, nor 1916-1999, but 1919-1921.

    You did not 'attack nonsense' - you attacked me personally and my ability to do my job.


    Tell me - who decides when these things start and end? Historians do. Are they exact? No - because life isn't exact. It's just a device to give people nice easy to digest packages.

    In 1916, despite the lack of popular support and a signed Home Rule agreement waiting to come into force, a groups of republicans staged an armed rebellion. They had no mandate.

    The majority of the leaders were executed ( shot) , with the rank and file imprisoned leading to the growth in popular support within Ireland.
    During their confinement, Republicans reorganised, generally got their guerilla act together and began to seriously fund raise with the intention of continuing the uprising when released from prison. The fact that a general election coincided was happy coincidence as it gave them a 'mandate'.

    GE or no GE - they were going to continue the conflict began in 1916.

    If 1916 had not happened then Home Rule as agreed in 1914 would have come into force in 1918 - it didn't because the dispute that erupted in 1916 was still violently at play.


Advertisement