Is it just me or have SF vanished?

McMurphy wrote: »

Forget the uda and loyalists with the flute bands, you don't think there's a bang of hypocrisy coming from those whinging about the social distancing guidelines being ignored at the Sinn Fein funeral and not at the Gardai funeral?

Both groups of people were wrong, and one doesn't cancel the other out.

Varadkar and pals using a funeral to score political points is hardly surprising but a new low all same.

But why do parties do this political point scoring? Because they think it’s what their supporters want. It’s mirrored in this thread. If voters told them to cop on it would stop.

Mortelaro wrote: »

Repeatedly pointed out,Garda Horkans funeral was a State funeral so an entirely different case altogether

Well I reckon Mr Storey would have had much more of a personal relationship with attendees at his funeral than the hero Garda had at his, from political parties.

But all irrelevant. Why not move on and see what we can learn rather than constant bitching and moaning. Been going on for so long and no one has even remotely changed their mind.

Mortelaro wrote: »

Repeatedly pointed out,Garda Horkans funeral was a State funeral so an entirely different case altogether

It's a moronic argument though. If the concern is about social distancing and the spread of COVID and not about anything else, then the same arguments apply. The virus doesn't give a f*ck who someone was or why people are gathering in a non socially distant manner, so either both sides are wrong and should be both criticised and told to stay away from Dáil business etc until they're past the incubation period for the virus, or neither. It's that simple.

As far as I'm concerned, both sides should be. Ignoring social distancing in the manner it was ignored for the sake of photo ops is moronically stupid and an insult to everyone who has suffered because of the nationwide quarantine. But to act as if the identity of the deceased justifies one and not the other when the controversy is supposedly about the transmission of COVID is essentially letting the mask slip that that's not really why people are bashing SF here, they're just using COVID as an excuse to do so.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

It has been condemned across the political spectrum by all parties on the island apart from SF themselves. You see, this is classic example of how the moral compass of those sympathetic to SF differs from almost everyone else. To them, this is yet another attempt to smear the good name of the brave men and women of SF.



To others it's as clear as the nose on their face that this was a complete balls of a situation they created for themselves, and they now have absolutely no credibility in passing judgment or criticism on actions taken as a result of the biggest crisis to hit the world since WW2.



No other party in Ireland (indeed in Europe) would have sent their entire leadership team up to the funeral of a thug, terrorist, and bank robber.



Not a normal party.

There'd have been nobody at Mandela's funeral either had he died while he was bombing and engaging in operations against an oppressive regime.


I agree, SF are not a normal party, they have evolved out of an extraordinary conflict/war and divided society.
And blamed for some for all the ills of that society.

Truthvader wrote: »

That is why the main parties want nothing to do with you and that is why you are incapable of understanding why

Unless that main party has more seats than SF in any potential coalition.

McMurphy wrote: »

Varadkar and pals using a funeral to score political points is hardly surprising but a new low all same.

I've no real opinion on Michelle O'Neill needing to step aside, or Mary Lou and the call for her to stay away from Leinster House, or any of the rest of that stuff. I think they should have had the sense to see this coming, and am mainly just baffled at the handling of it. I'd have thought they'd be smarter about it. They should just hold their hands up and say, yes, we were wrong, it's a really difficult situation etc. Telling people who are upset that they missed funerals of family and friends they loved because of restrictions that "one of the great marks of friendship is how you say goodbyes" is really, really tone-deaf and will not help your case.
But just to address this, to be fair, he actually didn't. His comment this morning was specifically, and only, about Michelle O'Neill being in Dublin when Martin's family stayed away. He said very clearly that he didn't want to talk about the funeral or make any comment on that, out of respect for the fact that it was a funeral. It's on video.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There'd have been nobody at Mandela's funeral either had he died while he was bombing and engaging in operations against an oppressive regime.


I agree, SF are not a normal party, they have evolved out of an extraordinary conflict/war and divided society.
And blamed for some for all the ills of that society.

Mandela = Bobby Storey.

This thread has well and truly jumped the shark.

joeguevara wrote: »

Like I honestly don’t think people think SF supporters are terrorists and I don’t think people think FG supporters are Fascist. Isn’t it time we cop on and stop being reactionary due to what we see on social media. Similarly politicians should stop governing by point scoring. Who does it help. Division isn’t working. Time for something new?

Well ask yourself, what kind of person looks at Gerry Adams and thinks that is the leader for me? What kind of person do you think Dessie Ellis is? Jonathan Dowdall? Martin Ferris? Who cheers for the killers of Garda McCabe? Look at their supporters here. Even now they will justify and glorify their thug history. Look at the low level of candidate they are invariably stuck with. Do you think these people will manage an economy or provide housing. Look at their performance in Northern Ireland which effectively survives on UK government handouts to bribe the two sides into not killing each other. Still they cant even show up to run the 6 county government they are supposed to

blanch152 wrote: »

More lies and untruths. Varadkar did not talk about the funeral. I am sure you will deflect and run away rather than withdraw those remarks.

Ahem.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/politicians-should-lead-by-example-says-varadkar-39334789.html

blanch152 wrote: »

Mandela = Bobby Storey.

This thread has well and truly jumped the shark.

Mandela's life, certainly equals Storey's life. Very similar paths from conflict to building peace.

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Yes he commented on ONeill coming to the convention centre

He used the funeral controversy to have a politcal pop at O'Neill, which is what the poster said.
FG guy with Mat Carty last night doing the same.

Not sure if he is 'pals' with Leo.

blanch152 wrote: »

It would take a very long post to explain the difference, but it encompasses political, economic, social and cultural differences for a start.

The Ireland of 1968 was a very different place to the Ireland of 1916, if you do not know that, you don't know your history. By 1973, the last few changes that were needed were achieved with the acknowledgement by the UK government in the Sunningdale agreement that the will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland was what counted.

Whatever discussion people can have about the justification for the IRA in the period 1968-1973, (and I can have that discussion and am open to some change in my view) there was no reason to pursue anything other than peaceful change post-1973. I am old enough to remember the 1970s well - the IRA were a scourge on this country.

I don't agree for one simple reason, the institutions of Northern Ireland were still stacked against Catholics and that included the police, who routinely engaged in everything from biased policing based on sectarianism to out-right terrorism of the local population. A paramilitary force was absolutely necessary in that context, because without it, anyone trying to go about their lives as a Catholic in the flashpoint areas was a sitting duck.

I keep bringing this up, but the day the Troubles began is universally regarded as the civil rights march in 1968, in which peaceful protesters got the absolute sh!t kicked out of them by the state backed police force for having the temerity to demand equal treatment under the law. The IRA was formed to even the scales between the oppressive institutions of the state which were giving the other side an entirely unfair and totally insurmountable advantage in maintaining their oppression of the Catholic/nationalist population.

I condemn the road the IRA travelled down which involved intentionally targeting innocent civilians. But the RUC were not a police force, they were themselves a paramilitary loyalist organisation in all but name. Nationalists had every right both to defend themselves and strike back against that institution and that in my view is why the IRA's formation and early activity was justified. The Troubles were essentially a civil war started by the police, that's the part that so many people seem to forget. Any police force which brutalists peaceful protesters, at any time, for any reason, deserves whatever blowback they get from the people they're oppressing.

It's not dissimilar to what's going on in the US right now. The reason so many people are supporting the rioters and those attacking the cops is because the cops have had this coming to them for decades and deserve to be targeted as an organisation of scumbags. They started it, they fired first, there wouldn't be any conflict to fight in if the cops in the US weren't such trigger happy assholes. The same goes for the IRA - the RUC and the loyalists started the conflict and engaged in violence against peaceful protesters. They deserved to be met with violent opposition as a result.

Again, I would never justify the killing of civilians and I've always lamented the fact that this came to define the IRA through their own incredibly immoral decision making. But the conditions which created the IRA are 100%, unequivocally and unadulteratedly the fault of the loyalist side, who decided to oppose demands for basic human rights with wanton violence and sadism.

For that reason, I make no distinction between the War of Independence and the Troubles as far as justification. In both cases, Ireland (or a part of Ireland) was faced with completely unjustified state-sponsored terrorism from a brutal, corrupt, unaccountable and politically partisan police force. I will always support armed and violent opposition to such state oppression no matter where it happens or what the context is. And the IRA initially existed to provide that. When it went off the rails and began targeting civilians is where it loses me entirely as an organisation, but to act as if the backdrop to its existence is so fundamentally different to the backdrop of the War of Independence is in my view incredibly ignorant. Both wars were started by a state which stood over demographic warfare and fought on the side of one demographic against another.

Any time a state behaves this way, the other demographic is justified in reacting with violence. In my opinion anyway.

My arent Mary Lou McDonald and Pierce Doherty being called to resign? They didn't socially distance, there's pictures of them both breaking the rules too.


And the nonsense of Doherty daying "but he was our friend" does he think that nobody else exists while he isn't looking at them? Lots of other people were made to skip friends or even family members funerals.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

People whose lives are being destroyed by the neoliberal approach to housing and the spiralling cost of living, and see no viable alternative party which is at least ostensibly committed to turning over the table rather than, at best, engaging in minor rearrangements of what's sitting on it?

But at least start with Gerry Adams is not or will not be sitting at the table.